Competence in pediatric urology upon graduation from residency: perceptions of residents, program directors and pediatric urologists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to clarify the scope of pediatric urological procedures that Canadian urology residents are perceived to be competent to perform upon graduation. METHODS: We conducted a survey from April 2005 to June 2006 of urology residency program directors (UPDs), senior urology residents (SURs) and Pediatric Urologists of Canada (PUC) members from all 12 Canadian training programs. Questions focused on which of 23 pediatric urological procedures the 3 study groups perceived urology residents would be competent to perform upon completion of residency without further fellowship training. Procedures were based on the "A," "B" and "C" lists of procedures (least complex to most complex) as outlined in the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada Objectives of Training in Urology. RESULTS: Response rates were 12/12 (100%), 41/53 (77%) and 17/23 (74%) for UPDs, SURs and PUC members, respectively. Average exposure to pediatric urology during residency was 5.4 (range 3-9) months and considered sufficient by 75% of UPDs and 69% of SURs, but only 41% of PUC members (p = 0.05). Overall, the 3 groups disagreed on the level of competence for performing level "A" and "B" procedures, with significant disagreement between PUC members and UPDs as well as SURs (p < 0.005). CONCLUSION: PUC members perceive Canadian urology residents' exposure to pediatric urology as insufficient and their competence for procedures of low to moderate complexity as inadequate. Further investigation regarding exposure to and competence in other emerging subspecialty spheres of urology may be warranted. Ongoing assessment of the objectives for training in pediatric urology is required.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".