Research experience, goals, and priorities of pediatric neurosurgeons: a survey of the American Society of Pediatric Neurosurgeons
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: Neurosurgeon scientists play a unique role in advancing neuroscience research. While previous publications have explored trends in federal and foundation funding among neurosurgeons, funding is often dominated by neurosurgical oncologists and functional neurosurgeons. Less is known about the research efforts of pediatric neurosurgeons. The aim of this study was to survey the members of the American Society of Pediatric Neurosurgeons (ASPN) to provide an overview of past research experience, current involvement, funding, and research priorities among pediatric neurosurgeons, and to gather insights that could shape future efforts to advance pediatric neurosurgical research. METHODS: A survey was developed using the REDCap platform and distributed to all ASPN members via email. Survey questions used branching logic and were organized into 5 sections: 1) demographics, 2) research experience during training, 3) research experience as an attending physician, 4) research priorities, and 5) multicenter consortiums. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-nine respondents completed more than half of the survey, for an overall response rate of 52.1%. Most respondents (96.4%) participated in research during their training, but only 38.1% had received a grant during training. In contrast, 83.9% of respondents were actively engaged in research as an attending physician, and 48.7% reported active funding (60.7% federal, 41.8% from foundations, and 42.9% internal). Furthermore, 74.8% of respondents reported being a member of a multicenter research consortium, and 82.4% agreed that multicenter research is important. Seventy percent of respondents agreed that the ASPN should facilitate multicenter consortium-based pediatric neurosurgical research, offering free-text responses with the following suggestions: 1) set aside time at the annual meeting to discuss multicenter research (22.9%); 2) encourage collaboration and facilitate networking (42.9%); 3) provide centralized core services such as a data coordinator and biostatistician (12.9%); and 4) provide training, education, and mentoring (7.1%). CONCLUSIONS: The survey provided a cross-sectional analysis of the pediatric neurosurgical research landscape, highlighting the current state of research experience, funding, and the perspectives of pediatric neurosurgeons regarding research priorities. Despite the challenges, there is clear recognition of the importance of multicenter research collaboration. These findings reinforce the ongoing necessity of organized initiatives to support pediatric neurosurgical research and offer actionable insights into how organized pediatric neurosurgery can contribute to this critical endeavor.
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 | 0,007 | 0,025 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,009 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».