Journal: Data in Brief

Article Title: Energetic and kinetic dataset on interaction of the vacancy and self-interstitial atom with the grain boundary in α-iron

doi: 10.1016/j.dib.2016.03.052

Figure Lengend Snippet:

Article Snippet: How data was acquired , Molecular dynamics simulations, molecular statics calculations and the object kinetic Monte Carlo simulations.

Techniques:

Journal: Global Surgical Education - Journal of the Association for Surgical Education

Article Title: Current status of virtual reality simulation education for orthopedic residents: the need for a change in focus

doi: 10.1007/s44186-023-00120-w

Figure Lengend Snippet: Realism of VR simulators used in educational events

Article Snippet: Vaghela, 2021 [ ] , 10-point Numerical Rating Scale , • “The results indicate that the ArthroS VR simulator demonstrates satisfactory (7.0) face validity in all assessed domains, while the ARTHRO Mentor failed to achieve acceptable levels of realism in any domains when judged by a range of orthopaedic surgeons... • Across all face validity domains, the ArthroS scored significantly (p < 0.001) higher than the ARTHRO Mentor simulator, suggesting a clear preference amongst our study participants • 95% of participants gave the passive simulator a score 7.0 (indicating sufficient realism), compared to 47% for the active simulator • The intra articular appearance domain scored a combined mean of 7.65 (± 1.26) and 4.78 (± 1.59) for passive and active simulators respectively • 76% of participants gave the passive simulator a score 7.0 in this category, compared to 11% for the active simulator • Mean combined face validity scores for the instrument category were 7.21 (± 1.68) and 4.36 (± 1.50) for passive and active simulators respectively • Combined mean sufficient scores were given by 55% of participants for the passive simulator, versus 8% for the active simulator.”.

Techniques: Diagnostic Assay, Activity Assay, Control

Journal: Global Surgical Education - Journal of the Association for Surgical Education

Article Title: Current status of virtual reality simulation education for orthopedic residents: the need for a change in focus

doi: 10.1007/s44186-023-00120-w

Figure Lengend Snippet: Results from study of educational modules comparing technical skill acquisition through VR simulation versus control group

Article Snippet: Vaghela, 2021 [ ] , 10-point Numerical Rating Scale , • “The results indicate that the ArthroS VR simulator demonstrates satisfactory (7.0) face validity in all assessed domains, while the ARTHRO Mentor failed to achieve acceptable levels of realism in any domains when judged by a range of orthopaedic surgeons... • Across all face validity domains, the ArthroS scored significantly (p < 0.001) higher than the ARTHRO Mentor simulator, suggesting a clear preference amongst our study participants • 95% of participants gave the passive simulator a score 7.0 (indicating sufficient realism), compared to 47% for the active simulator • The intra articular appearance domain scored a combined mean of 7.65 (± 1.26) and 4.78 (± 1.59) for passive and active simulators respectively • 76% of participants gave the passive simulator a score 7.0 in this category, compared to 11% for the active simulator • Mean combined face validity scores for the instrument category were 7.21 (± 1.68) and 4.36 (± 1.50) for passive and active simulators respectively • Combined mean sufficient scores were given by 55% of participants for the passive simulator, versus 8% for the active simulator.”.

Techniques: Control, Comparison, Standard Deviation