Differences in the perceived impact of sleep deprivation among surgical and non‐surgical residents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Resident work hour restrictions have been mandated in the USA largely out of concern that sleep deprivation compromises doctor performance and patient care. However, individuals' ability to recognise the effects of sleep deprivation has not been studied in medical education. We examined the perceived impact of sleep deprivation among different groups of postgraduate medical trainees. METHODS: A survey addressing work hours, sleepiness and daily functioning was mailed to all residents in the internal medicine, surgery and psychiatry programmes at the University of Toronto who were working at 6 different teaching hospitals. The mailing included the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), measuring acute sleepiness, and a new Sleep Deprivation Impact (SDI) scale, consisting of 12 items designed to measure the perceived impact of sleep deprivation on an individual's own performance. RESULTS: Overall, 62.5% of surgery (95/152) and 59.5% of non-surgery residents (194/326) completed the survey. Surgery residents reported working longer hours per week (83.0 versus 62.5 hours; P < 0.01), and scored higher on the ESS (12.8 versus 9.2; P < 0.01) compared with other residents. Surgery residents scored significantly lower than others on the SDI scale (45.2 versus 51.5, P < 0.01), indicating less perceived impact of sleep deprivation on performance. CONCLUSIONS: These results are consistent with the presence of an underlying culture within surgery in which individuals may be less willing to accept a natural limitation of individual performance. Whether these findings represent an actual resilience to sleep deprivation among surgery residents or a misperception within this group remains to be determined.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".