Craniofacial Fellowship Trained Surgeons: Where Are They Now?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTION: There are currently 29 craniofacial surgery fellowship training programs in the United States and Canada endorsed by the American Society of Craniofacial Surgeons and participating in the San Francisco Match. This number has increased over the last decade despite limited demand. The authors sought to evaluate the practice types and patterns of craniofacial fellowship trained surgeons. METHODS: After Institutional Review Board approval, a 20-question survey was designed to evaluate craniofacial surgeons and their practice patterns. The survey was sent to surgeons who completed accredited craniofacial fellowships in the United States or Canada from 2010 to 2018. The survey was created and distributed electronically through a private survey research center. RESULTS: There were 61 respondents (26.5% response rate), 68.8% male, and 85.2% 36–45 years old. 54.1% trained in integrated plastic surgery residency before fellowship, and 39.1% trained in general surgery followed by plastic surgery fellowship. Some had previously completed fellowships: 8 (13.1%) pediatric plastic surgery, 5 (8.2%) microsurgery, 4 (6.6%) esthetic surgery, 3 (4.9%) hand surgery, and 2 (3.3%) burn surgery. Forty-five surgeons (75%) have been in practice ≤5 years. Practice profiles were academic (49.2%), private (23.0%), and hospital employed (9.8%) with 18% in various hybrid practices. Percentage of practice dedicated to craniofacial surgery was <25% for 21 (34.4%), 25%–50% for 10 (16.4%), 51%–75% for 13 (21.3%), and >76% for 17 surgeons (27.9%) with 63.8% desiring an increase in craniofacial case volume. Surgeons’ patient populations are 14.8% pediatric only, 6.6% adult only, and 78.7% combined. They perform craniofacial trauma reconstruction (88.5%), general plastic surgery reconstruction (83.6%), cleft lip and palate repair (75.4%), craniosynostosis reconstruction (68.9%), breast surgery (54.1%), microtia reconstruction (50.8%), orthognathic surgery (50.8%), cosmetic surgery (50.8%), microsurgery (45.9%), hand surgery (36.1%), and facial reanimation (32.7%). Forty-six (75.4%) work as members of a craniofacial team. Twenty-six (42.6%) do not have any craniofacial trained partners. Twelve surgeons (19.7%) had jobs secured before beginning craniofacial fellowship, and 44 (72.1%) were able to find jobs in their desired geographic area. Forty-one (67.2%) would recommend completing a craniofacial fellowship. CONCLUSION: Craniofacial surgeons trained within the last decade are primarily in academic practice, operate on adults and children, and perform a variety of procedures. Limitations include low response rate and likelihood that surgeons who do not perform craniofacial surgery did not respond. Respondents were able to find employment in their desired location, work on a craniofacial team, and would recommend a craniofacial fellowship.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 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; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».