Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 295

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Artificial Intelligence in Medical Education: Best Practices Using Machine Learning to Assess Surgical Expertise in Virtual Reality Simulation

Winkler-Schwartz, Alexander, Bissonnette, Vincent, Mirchi, Nykan, Ponnudurai, Nirros, Yilmaz, Recai, Ledwos, Nicole, Siyar, Samaneh, Azarnoush, Hamed, Karlik, Bekir, Del Maestro, Rolando F.·2019·Journal of Surgical Education

Abstract

OBJECTIVE Virtual reality simulators track all movements and forces of simulated instruments, generating enormous datasets which can be further analyzed with machine learning algorithms. These advancements may increase the understanding, assessment and training of psychomotor performance. Consequently, the application of machine learning techniques to evaluate performance on virtual reality simulators has led to an increase in the volume and complexity of publications which bridge the fields of computer science, medicine, and education. Although all disciplines stand to gain from research in this field, important differences in reporting exist, limiting interdisciplinary communication and knowledge transfer. Thus, our objective was to develop a checklist to provide a general framework when reporting or analyzing studies involving virtual reality surgical simulation and machine learning algorithms. By including a total score as well as clear subsections of the checklist, authors and reviewers can both easily assess the overall quality and specific deficiencies of a manuscript. DESIGN The Machine Learning to Assess Surgical Expertise (MLASE) checklist was developed to help computer science, medicine, and education researchers ensure quality when producing and reviewing virtual reality manuscripts involving machine learning to assess surgical expertise. SETTING This study was carried out at the McGill Neurosurgical Simulation and Artificial Intelligence Learning Centre. PARTICIPANTS The authors applied the checklist to 12 articles using machine learning to assess surgical expertise in virtual reality simulation, obtained through a systematic literature review. RESULTS Important differences in reporting were found between medical and computer science journals. The medical journals proved stronger in discussion quality and weaker in areas related to study design. The opposite trends were observed in computer science journals. CONCLUSIONS This checklist will aid in narrowing the knowledge divide between computer science, medicine, and education: helping facilitate the burgeoning field of machine learning assisted surgical education.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jsurg.2019.05.015

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 295

Metadata

Authors
Winkler-Schwartz, A., Bissonnette, V., Mirchi, N., Ponnudurai, N., Yilmaz, R., Ledwos, N., Siyar, S., Azarnoush, H., Karlik, B., & Del Maestro, R. F.
Venue
Journal of Surgical Education
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-11
Volume
76
Issue
6
Pages
1681-1690
ISSN
  • 1878-7452 (ISSN-L)
  • 1931-7204
OpenAlex
W2951405082
Cited by
295
References
2
FWCI
23.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Artificial Intelligence in Medical Education: Best Practices Using Machine Learning to Assess Surgical Expertise in Virtual Reality Simulation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jsurg.2019.05.015
The paper
Winkler-Schwartz, A., Bissonnette, V., Mirchi, N., Ponnudurai, N., Yilmaz, R., Ledwos, N., Siyar, S., Azarnoush, H., Karlik, B., & Del Maestro, R. F. (2019). Artificial Intelligence in Medical Education: Best Practices Using Machine Learning to Assess Surgical Expertise in Virtual Reality Simulation. Journal of Surgical Education. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2019.05.015

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.