MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002020618 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.1720

Royal College surgical objectives of urologic training: A survey of faculty members from Canadian training programs

2014· article· en· W2002020618 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Ahmed S. Zakaria, Richard Haddad, Alice Dragomir, Wassim Kassouf, Sero Andonian, Armen Aprikian

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical Simulation and Training
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSubspecialtyDemographicsSpecialtyCystectomyGeneral surgeryUrologySurgeryFamily medicineBladder cancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: According to the Royal College objectives of training in urology, urologic surgical procedures are divided as category A, B and C. We wanted to determine the level of proficiency required and achieved by urology training faculty for Royal College accreditation. METHODS: We conducted a survey that was sent electronically to all Canadian urology training faculty. Questions focused on demographics (i.e., years of practice, geographic location, subspecialty, access to robotic surgery), operating room contact with residents, opinion on the level of proficiency required from a list of 54 surgical procedures, and whether their most recent graduates attained category A proficiency in these procedures. RESULTS: The response rate was 43.7% (95/217). Among respondents, 92.6% were full timers, 21.1% practiced urology for less than 5 years and 3.2% for more than 30 years. Responses from Quebec and Ontario formed 69.4% (34.7% each). Of the respondents, 37.9% were uro-oncologists and 75.7% reported having access to robotic surgery. Sixty percent of faculty members operate with R5 residents between 2 to 5 days per month. When respondents were asked which categories should be listed as category A, only 8 procedures received 100% agreement. Also, results varied significantly when analyzed by sub-specialty. For example, almost 50% or more of uro-oncologists believed that radical cystectomy, anterior pelvic exenteration and extended pelvic lymphadenectomy should not be category A. The following procedures had significant disagreement suggesting the need for re-classification: glanular hypospadias repair, boari flap, entero-vesical and vesicovaginal fistulae repair. Overall, more than 80% of faculty reported that their recent graduating residents had achieved category A proficiency, in a subset of procedures. However, more than 50% of all faculty either disagreed or were ambivalent that all of their graduating residents were Category A proficient in several procedures. CONCLUSIONS: There is sufficient disagreement among Canadian urology faculty to suggest another revision of the current Royal College list of category A procedures.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.999
Threshold uncertainty score0.112

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.221 · 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.

Study designObservational
DomainEvaluation
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

Citations10
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association JournalSame topicSurgical Simulation and TrainingFrench-language works237,207