Readiness for Practice: A Survey of Neurosurgery Graduates and Program Directors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Postgraduate neurosurgical education is undergoing significant reform, including transition to a competency-based training model. To support these efforts, the purpose of this study was to determine neurosurgical graduates' and program directors' (PDs) opinions about graduates' level of competence in reference to the 2010 Royal College Objectives of Training in Neurosurgery. METHODS: An electronic survey was distributed to Canadian neurosurgery PDs and graduates from 2011. The questionnaire addressed graduates' abilities in nonprocedural knowledge and skills, CanMEDS roles, proficiency with core neurosurgical procedures and knowledge of complex neurosurgical techniques. RESULTS: Thirteen of 22 (59%) graduate and 17/25 (65%) PD surveys were completed. There were no significant differences between PD and graduate responses. Most respondents agreed that these graduates possess the knowledge and skills expected of an independently practicing neurosurgeon across current objectives of training. A small proportion felt some graduates did not achieve this level of proficiency on specific vascular, functional, peripheral nerve and endoscopic procedures. This was partially attributed to limited exposure to these procedures during training and perceptions that some techniques required fellowship-level training. CONCLUSIONS: Graduating neurosurgical residents are perceived to possess a high level of proficiency in the majority of neurosurgical practice domains. Inadequate exposure during training or a perception that subspecialists should perform some procedures may contribute to cases where proficiency is not as high. The trends identified in this study could be monitored on an ongoing basis to provide supplemental data to guide curricular decisions in Canadian neurosurgical training.
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 | 0.008 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".