Survey of international regional anesthesia fellowship directors
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The scope of regional anesthesia fellowship programs has not been analyzed but may provide insights that could improve fellowship training and standards. METHODS: Regional anesthesia fellowship directors across the world were asked to complete a comprehensive survey that detailed the range of educational and practical experience and attitudes as well as assessment procedures offered in their programs. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 66% (45/68). Overall, the range of activities and the time and resources committed to education during fellowships is encouraging. A wide range of nerve block experience is reported with most programs also offering acute pain management, research, and teaching opportunities. Only two-thirds of fellowships provide formal feedback. This feedback is typically a formative assessment. CONCLUSION: This is the first survey of regional anesthesia fellowship directors, and it illustrates the international scope and continuing expansion of education and training in the field. The results should be of interest to program directors seeking to benchmark and improve their educational programs and to faculty involved in further curriculum development.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 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 it