MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W165648023 · doi:10.1177/000313480607201019

The Effect of the 80-Hour Work Week on General Surgery Resident Operative Case Volume

2006· article· en· W165648023 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Julie Tran, Roger Lewis, Christian de Virgilio

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Surgeon · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHospital Admissions and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)MedicineCategorical variableWork hoursGeneral surgerySurgeryWork (physics)StatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To meet the new duty hour restrictions on July 1, 2003, our general surgery residency program underwent many changes. The purpose of this study was to examine whether the implementation of these changes, made in part to comply with new duty hour restrictions, would adversely impact general surgery residents' operative volume. The operative cases of categorical surgical residents were recorded from July 1, 2000 to December 31, 2004. The main outcome measure was the median number of operative cases performed by each resident per quarter (a 3-month period). The number of in-house calls each resident took per quarter was also recorded. From 2000 to 2004, the median number of in-house calls per quarter significantly decreased (27, 25, 15, 10, and 14, respectively; P < 0.001). The median number of operative procedures performed did not vary from quarter to quarter (P = 0.49). There was a trend toward an increase in number of cases performed at the postgraduate year (PGY) 1 (P = 0.07) and 2 (P = 0.04) levels, a decrease at the PGY3 level (P = 0.058), and no change at the PGY4 and 5 years. The 80-hour work week did not adversely affect the operative experience of our categorical surgical residents despite significant reductions of in-house call.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations52
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American SurgeonSame topicHospital Admissions and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207