A Role for the Surgeon-Scientist? What Does the “Evidence” Tell Us?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background": An article in this issue of the Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences provides a platform for reviewing the role of surgeon-scientists in contemporary medical practice 1 .The article by Fady Girgis is entitled "Feasibility of a dual neurosurgeon-scientist career in Canada: a survey study".The method used to obtain the data was an electronic survey distributed to staff neurosurgeons and neurosurgery residents across Canada.Questions were designed to identify qualities that exemplified ideal neurosurgical practice in relation to research.A neurosurgeon-scientist was defined as a neurosurgeon that spends at least 50% of his or her time performing research or research-related activities.In the case of residents the designation was based on intended practice, rather than current practice.In the results section the author presents the data from 54 neurosurgeons/residents that completed the survey, 32 of whom were current or intended neurosurgeon-scientists.The discussion reviews emergent themes such as: 1. Collaboration in research (85.2% of respondents felt that neurosurgeons who collaborate with basic scientists to conduct research are equally or more likely to obtain meaningful results compared to neurosurgeon-scientist conducting the same research); 2. The 'ideal' versus the 'real' neurosurgeon (83.3% of respondents did not feel that conducting research in addition to clinical duties was needed to become an 'ideal' neurosurgeon); 3. Research training in neurosurgery (85.2% of respondents were in favor of academic centres employing purely clinical neurosurgeons alongside neurosurgeon-scientists, rather than hiring only neurosurgeon-scientists, though 77.8% of respondents reported feeling pressure to publish journal articles).The author concludes that it is possible to do good work in both neurosurgery and neuroscience simultaneously, but in reality it is very difficult to do so."Methods": The author of this editorial performed a PubMed search using the term 'surgeon-scientist'.The articles were reviewed in varying levels of depth according to the information provided in the title and/or abstract.Themes from the articles are reported and discussed using the spirit and the space limitations of an editorial."Results": The PubMed search revealed 163 articles containing the term 'surgeon-scientist' (term 'physicianscientist' identified 777 articles!).Survey of these 163 articles revealed: 1.Many articles that were tributes and/or obituaries to/for eminent surgeons (surgeon-scientists) including the general surgeon Beaumont 2 , the neurosurgeon Rasmussen 3 and the plastic/transplant surgeon Murray 4 ; 2. Many articles that were editorials/opinion pieces/published addresses, including those by Nobel laureates [5][6][7] , presidents of academic surgical societies 8,9 , presidents of scientific societies [10][11][12] , and editors of prominent journals 13,14 ; 3. A smaller number of articles that did gather some data around the topic (surveys/data base extraction), especially as related to training 15,16 and funding 17 of the surgeon-
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,083 | 0,302 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,007 | 0,009 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,012 |
| Communication savante | 0,019 | 0,017 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,011 | 0,014 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,009 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».