Transatlantic comparison of the competence of surgeons at the start of their professional career
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although the objective in European Union and North American surgical residency programmes is similar-to train competent surgeons-residents' working hours are different. It was hypothesized that practice-ready surgeons with more working hours would perform significantly better than those being educated within shorter working week curricula. METHODS: At each test site, 21 practice-ready candidate surgeons were recruited. Twenty qualified Canadian and 19 qualified Dutch surgeons served as examiners. At both sites, three validated outcome instruments assessing multiple aspects of surgical competency were used. RESULTS: No significant differences were found in performance on the integrative and cognitive examination (Comprehensive Integrative Puzzle) or the technical skills test (Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skill; OSATS). A significant difference in outcome was observed only on the Patient Assessment and Management Examination, which focuses on skills needed to manage patients with complex problems (P < 0.001). A significant interaction was observed between examiner and candidate origins for both task-specific OSATS checklist (P = 0.001) and OSATS global rating scale (P < 0.001) scores. CONCLUSION: Canadian residents, serving many more working hours, perform equivalently to Dutch residents when assessed on technical skills and cognitive knowledge, but outperformed Dutch residents in skills for patient management. Secondary analyses suggested that cultural differences influence the assessment process significantly.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".