Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Surgical educators have responded to the demand for increased skills in minimally invasive surgery by offering short technique-focused workshops at academic centres. The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of a comprehensive laparoscopic intestinal workshop for the adoption of laparoscopic colonic surgery. METHODS: A 2-day comprehensive laparoscopic intestinal surgery workshop included didactic teaching and supervised hands-on practice of numerous laparoscopic colon resections on a cadaveric model. Participants completed pre-, post- and 6-month postcourse questionnaires. RESULTS: The participants (n = 39) had been in practice for a mean of 10 (interquartile range 3-18) years. Fifty-one percent (n = 20) were already performing laparoscopic colectomies as part of their practices prior to the course. Regardless of whether they were performing laparoscopic colectomies prior to the course or not, attending the 2-day workshop improved their self-assessed preparedness to perform laparoscopic colectomies. Six months after the intestinal workshop, 10 of 16 respondents who were not performing laparoscopic colectomies prior to the course had performed at least 1 since the course. Seven of these individuals had a preceptor for their first case. Reasons cited for not performing a laparoscopic colectomy since the workshop included perceived inadequate surgical skill set, a lack of preceptor and the lack of an appropriate patient. CONCLUSION: A comprehensive laparoscopic intestinal workshop contributed to the perceived acquisition of advanced laparoscopic surgical skills. Local laparoscopic preceptorship was an important adjunct to the workshop for the incorporation of laparoscopic colorectal surgery into practice.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".