Postal survey of training in pediatric cardiac anesthesia in the United Kingdom<sup>1</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are no nationally agreed standards for training in pediatric cardiac anesthesia despite the recommendation of two reports. Since then, anesthesia training has changed because of the introduction of competency-based training, the New Deal and the European Working Time Directive. METHODS: We surveyed consultant pediatric cardiac anesthetists to establish what training they had undergone and to compare this with what they would recommend for training in the specialty. We also wanted to determine the profession's views on establishing training guidelines and what areas of practice to include when setting standards. RESULTS: Seventy-three percent of consultants want the Royal College of Anaesthetists to set standards for training. The majority had spent at least 2 years training in general pediatric, adult cardiac and pediatric cardiac anesthesia as well as pediatric intensive care and had spent time gaining experience overseas. CONCLUSIONS: They would recommend the same experience for others but this is unlikely to happen within the current constraints of specialist registrar training. Therefore, further training in a fellowship program in the UK or abroad is likely to be necessary.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".