Assessment of phonomicrosurgical training in otolaryngology residencies: A resident survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: The primary objective of this study is to assess the adequacy of clinical and laboratory-based phonomicrosurgical training in otolaryngology residency programs using a self-report survey. The study aims to establish whether there is a need and desire for focused surgical training in phonomicrosurgery. STUDY DESIGN: Self-report Internet-based questionnaire. METHODS: An anonymous survey was sent to all current residents in otolaryngology training programs in the United States and Canada. For portions of the analysis, the residents were categorized into two groups--junior (R2 and R3) and senior (R4 and R5). RESULTS: One hundred ninety-one residents responded to the survey (USA: 166; Canada: 25), representing a 34.3% response rate. Approximately one-half of residents stated that their residency program includes a rotation during which the main emphasis is laryngology. Only 18.8% of residents were "very" satisfied with the phonomicrosurgery experience that their program offers and 21.6% of senior residents felt "very" comfortable performing a phonomicrosurgical removal of a vocal fold lesion. Whereas the vast majority of respondents found temporal bone laboratory training to be helpful, 82% had never performed laboratory training in phonomicrosurgery. The majority (87.4%) felt that their comfort level with phonomicrosurgery would increase if they had access to laboratory-based training. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that there is a lack of emphasis on clinical and laboratory-based training in phonomicrosurgery and that there is a need and desire for focused surgical training in phonomicrosurgery.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".