ArticleFrontiers in surgery2024
Automated algorithm aided capacity and confidence boost in surgical decision-making training for inferior clivus.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To assess the impact of automated algorithms on the trainees' decision-making capacity and confidence for individualized surgical planning. Methods: At Chinese PLA General Hospital, trainees were enrolled to undergo decision-making capacity and confidence training through three alternative visual tasks of the inferior clivus model formed from an automated algorithm and given consecutively in three exemplars. The rationale of automated decision-making was used to instruct each trainee. Results: Following automated decision-making calculation in 50 skull base models, we screened out three optimal plans, infra-tubercle approach (ITA), trans-tubercle approach (TTA), and supra-tubercle approach (STA) for 41 (82.00%), 8 (16.00%), and 1 (2.00%) subject, respectively. From September 1, 2023, through November 17, 2023, 62 trainees (median age [range]: 27 [26-28]; 28 [45.16%] female; 25 [40.32%] neurosurgeons) made a decision among the three plans for the three typical models (ITA, TTA, and STA exemplars). The confidence ratings had fine test-retest reliability (Spearman's rho: 0.979; 95% CI: 0.970 to 0.988) and criterion validity with time spent (Spearman's rho: -0.954; 95%CI: -0.963 to -0.945). Following instruction of automated decision-making, time spent (initial test: 24.02 vs. 7.13 in ITA; 30.24 vs. 7.06 in TTA; 34.21 vs. 12.82 in STA) and total hits (initial test: 30 vs. 16 in ITA; 37 vs. 17 in TTA; 42 vs. 28 in STA) reduced significantly; confidence ratings (initial test: 2 vs. 4 in ITA; 2 vs. 4 in TTA; 1 vs. 3 in STA) increased correspondingly. Statistically significant differences ( Conclusions: The education tool generated by automated decision-making considers surgical freedom and injury risk for the individualized risk-benefit assessment, which may provide explicit information to increase trainees' decision-making capacity and confidence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.