Pediatric procedures in urology residency training: An analysis of the experience of Canadian urology residents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We sought to determine if the exposure to pediatric urologic procedures by graduates of Canadian urological programs is congruent with the objectives of training (OTR) put forward by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (RCPSC). METHODS: The Canadian T-Res (Resiliance Software Inc., Vancouver, BC) database for pediatric surgical procedures logged from 2003 to 2009 was interrogated. The number of cases logged for each of the A, B and C lists of procedures (least complex to most complex) as outlined in the RCPSC OTR in Urology were recorded for the 6 participating programs across the country. RESULTS: A total of 48 residents submitted data to T-Res from the 6 participating programs. Of the A-list procedures, Canadian urology residents (PGY 1-5) from the 6 participating programs participated in an annual average of 53 hypospadias repairs, 30 orchidopexies for inguinal testes, 26 circumcisions, 7 hernia/hydrocele repairs, 7 pyeloplasties, 7 ureteral reimplants, 6 endoscopic injections for vesicoureteral reflux, 3 meatoplasties/meatotomies, 1 transurethral incision of ureterocele, 2 endoscopic procedures for stone management, and 1 transurethral incision of ureterocele, during the years in question. Of the B-list procedures, residents participated in an annual average of 1 transurethral resection of a posterior urethral valve, 3 continent diversions, 2 augmentation cystoplasties and 1 vesicostomy. Of the data available for the C-list procedures, residents participated in an annual average of less than 1 exstrophy repair and less than 1 pediatric renal transplant. CONCLUSIONS: The RCPSC objectives set out by the specialty committee are a useful framework for guiding graduating residents on which procedures they might reasonably perform once they enter practice. Ongoing revisions to these objectives, which reflect changing trends in the management of core pediatric urology procedures, are supported by our study based on the number of cases in which residents participate. Improvements in the assessment of trainee surgical experience and competence, as it relates to the objectives of training in pediatric urology, are required as we migrate towards a competency-based model of postgraduate medical education.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".