Expectantly waiting: A survey of thyroid surgery wait times among Canadian Otolaryngologists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Our objective is to highlight discrepancies between actual wait times and perceived appropriate wait times for various thyroid pathologies among Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgeons in Canada; and to identify specific diagnoses/pathologies where wait times could be improved. METHODS: A questionnaire was distributed to all practicing CSO-HNS members. Questions focused on actual wait times for initial consults and surgery within individual practices, in the setting of various thyroid pathologies. Respondents were also asked to state wait times that they felt were appropriate for each scenario. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were performed to determine statistically significant differences between actual and appropriate wait times. RESULTS: For most scenarios, the actual wait times were significantly longer than most physicians felt were appropriate; these scenarios included time to initial consult for undiagnosed nodules, time to surgery for confirmed malignancies, and time to completion thyroidectomy for surgically confirmed malignancies. CONCLUSIONS: Wait times for thyroid consults and surgeries in Canada are longer than physicians feel are appropriate. The authors hope that this survey may spur a move towards a national consensus on appropriate wait times for the treatment of thyroid pathology.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".