## 3 Results  
Twenty-four physicians, with a median experience of 1.5 years and an interquartile range from 1.0 to 4.25 years, participated in the device training. Among them, 14 (58%) physicians rated their abilities in neuroendovascular interventions as inexperienced, five (21%) as moderate and five (21%) as advanced. Twelve (50%) physicians reported performing neuroendovascular interventions, while the other twelve had not performed any interventions. Except for two physicians, the remaining 22 (92%) physicians had assisted during neuroendovascular interventions. Fourteen (58%) of the physicians had previously used a vascular silicone or computer simulator, while 11 (46%) of the 24 had practiced on in vivo models. Among the twenty-four physicians, 92% considered the visibility of catheters during fluoroscopy mode to be sufficient, with a mean visibility rating of 4.29 \(\pm\) 0.86. Similarly, 96% found the visibility of guidelines sufficient, with a mean of 4.41 \(\pm\) 0.72. During RM mode, catheter visibility was rated as sufficient by 96% of physicians, with a mean of 4.29 \(\pm\) 0.55, while 88% considered guidewire visibility sufficient, with a mean of 4.20 \(\pm\) 0.78. For the 22 physicians who had at least assisted in one neuroendovascular intervention, 86% rated the visibility of catheters and guidewires during the RM mode as realistic, with a mean of 4.13 \(\pm\) 0.64 and 3.90 \(\pm\) 0.87, respectively. Additionally, 86% found the RM simulation itself realistic, with a mean of 4.18 \(\pm\) 0.8. The simulation of DSA was deemed realistic by 81% with a mean of 4.00 \(\pm\) 0.87, and 76% rated the entire simulation as realistic, with a mean of 3.81 \(\pm\) 0.81. Figure 5 provides a detailed breakdown of the physician's responses concerning the perceived realism of the simulation. The majority (92%) of physicians, with a mean of 4.50 \(\pm\) 0.66, indicated they would use the AngioSim again, while all respondents (100%) found it useful for neuroendovascular intervention training, with a mean of 4.67 \(\pm\) 0.48. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Simulator Type** & **Real Catheter Use** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Fluuroscopy-Like** \\ **Imaging** \\ \end{tabular} & **Radiation-Free** & **Replicable Hardware** & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Anatomy and Vessel** \\ **Material** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Cost-** \\ **Efficient** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline Animal Model & \(\blacktriangledown\) & \(\blacktriangledown\) & \(\blacktriangledown\) & \(\blacktriangledown\) & non-human; real vessel & \(\blacktriangledown\) \\  & & & & & human \\  & & & & & anatomy; & \(\blacktriangledown\) \\  & & virtual only & & & virtual & \\  & & & & human & \\  & & & camera view & & \(\blacktriangledown\) & anatomy; & \(\blacktriangledown\) \\  & & & & & silicone & \\  & & & & human & \\ AngioSim & & & AR overlays & & \(\blacktriangledown\) & anatomy; & \(\blacktriangledown\) \\  & & & & silicone & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Comparison of different neurointerventional training simulators. Among the 14 physicians with prior experience using vascular silicone simulators combined with a camera, 93% preferred the vascular silicone simulator combined with AngioSim over purely camera-based simulators, with a mean preference rating of 4.50 \(\pm\) 0.65. In contrast, only 28% of the 11 physicians with experience using in vivo training preferred the AngioSim over in vivo training, with a mean preference rating of 3.09 \(\pm\) 1.30. When compared to computer simulators like Mentice, 48% of physicians preferred the AngioSim, with a mean preference rating of 3.52 \(\pm\) 1.04. Figure 6 provides a detailed breakdown of physicians' preferences for different simulators, as well as their overall satisfaction with AngioSim.