MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2024601023 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.1807

Baseline urologic surgical skills among medical students: Differentiating trainees

2014· article· en· W2024601023 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Vishaal Gupta, Andrea G. Lantz, Tarek Alzharani, Kirsten Foell, Jason Y. Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical Simulation and Training
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalDalhousie UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCohortMedicineCystoscopyDemographicsTest (biology)LaparoscopyPhysical therapySurgeryGeneral surgeryInternal medicineUrinary systemDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Urology training programs seek to identify ideal candidates with the potential to become competent urologic surgeons. It is unclear whether innate technical ability has a role in this selection process. We aimed to determine whether there are any innate differences in baseline urologic technical skills among medical students. METHODS: Second-year medical students from the University of Toronto were recruited for this study and stratified into surgical and non-surgical cohorts based on their reported career aspirations. After a pre-test questionnaire, subjects were tested on several urologic surgical skills: laparoscopy, cystoscopy and robotic surgery. Statistical analysis was performed using chi-squared test, student t-tests and Spearman's correlation where appropriate. RESULTS: A total of 29 students participated in the study and no significant baseline differences were found between cohorts with respect to demographics and prior surgical experience. For laparoscopic skills, the surgical cohort outperformed the non-surgical cohort on several exercises: Lap Beans Missed (4.9 vs. 9.3, p < 0.01), Lap Bean Rating (3.8 vs. 3.1, p = 0.01), Lap Rings Error (0.2 vs. 1.22, p < 0.01), Lap Rings Rating (3.9 vs. 2.9, p < 0.01) and LapSim Grasping Score (64.3 vs. 46.4, p = 0.01). For cystoscopic skills, there were no significant differences between cohorts on any of the performance metrics. The surgical cohort also outperformed the non-surgical cohort on all measured robotic surgery performance metrics: Task Time (50.6 vs. 76.3, p < 0.01), Task Errors (0.2 vs. 3.1, p < 0.01), and Task Score (89.5 vs. 72.6, p < 0.01). DISCUSSION: Objective innate technical ability in urological skills, particularly laparoscopy and robotics, may differ between early trainees interested in a surgical career compared to those interested in a non-surgical career. Further studies are required to illicit what impact such differences have on future performance and competence.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.252 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association Journal→Same topicSurgical Simulation and Training→French-language works237,207→