Variations Among Urology Trainees in Their Use of Fluoroscopy During Ureteroscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Recently, surgeon behavior has been identified as a determinant of fluoroscopy time (FT) during ureteroscopy (URS). In a training program, postgraduate trainees (PGTs) assist in performing URS under direct supervision of an attending urologist. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to assess variations among PGTs in their use of FT during URS. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of prospectively collected data was performed for consecutive patients undergoing URS between July 2009 and December 2010 using standard fluoroscopy (30 frames per second). Urology PGTs in the fourth year assisted in performing these cases under the direct supervision of a single endourologist. Patient and stone characteristics together with operative data were compared among PGTs using univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: Seven PGTs (A, B, C, D, E, F, and G) assisted in 100 URS with a median (range) of 13 (11-18) procedures per trainee. Mean FT (95% confidence interval) for trainees A through G were 194 (115-272), 104 (65-144), 91 (66-117), 117 (58-175), 91 (52-131), 107 (7-143), and 64 (36-91) seconds, respectively (P=0.004). There were no significant differences among trainees in terms of patient (age and sex), stone (size, laterality, location, and multiplicity), and operative characteristics (operative time and balloon dilation) (P>0.05). Trainees, however, varied significantly in their use of access sheath (P=0.03). Trainees, male sex, balloon dilation, ureteral access sheath, and residual stones maintained their significance as predictors of FT on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: PGTs, in addition to male sex, balloon dilation, ureteral access sheath, and residual stones were significant predictors of FT during URS. Whether these differences in the behavior of PGTs are intrinsic to themselves or from perioperative factors remains to be clarified.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".