MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140460791 · doi:10.1093/ejcts/ezu455

Thoracic training across Europe: the trainees' perspective†

2014· editorial· en· W2140460791 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Philip McElnay, Gilbert Massard

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery · 2014
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical Simulation and Training
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)Training (meteorology)Medical educationPsychologyMedicineComputer scienceGeographyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Training in general thoracic surgery is facing several challenges. There are considerable variations between thoracic surgical training programmes internationally. Some are trained as cardiothoracic surgeons, some monospecialist thoracic surgeons, specialist thoracic and vascular surgeons, while others train as general surgeons with thoracic practice. Training must encompass the evolving treatment strategies, changing guidelines and new technology. Teaching new technology may be challenging when the teacher himself has not been trained for it. There also remains debate around the most effective training methods in a time-pressured environment [1, 2]. Despite the differences, the uniting factor for trainees is often the desire for the best possible training. At the macro-economical level, striving towards a global harmonization of training should facilitate international mobility of specialists. The European Board of Thoracic Surgery offers the possibility for certification by peers, signifying that the individual meets the requirements for independent practice at a high quality level. The European Society of Thoracic Surgeons (ESTS) considers its educational platform as a priority project. In May 2014, the Learning Affairs Committee of the ESTS conducted a trainees’ survey. The purpose for ESTS was to identify topics, which are insufficiently covered by existing training programmes in order to tailor its educational activities. All ESTS trainee members were invited to participate. DEMOGRAPHICS The survey was completed by 48 trainees (18.4% response rate) from 21 countries. The majority were European trainees (n= 43). Others were from Canada (n= 1), India (n= 1), Mexico (n= 1) and the USA (n= 2). Most were training in general thoracic surgery as a monospeciality (n= 24, 50%), 17 (35%) as cardiothoracic surgeons, 6 (13%) as thoracic and general surgeons, 0 as thoracic and vascular surgeons and 1 (2%) was training in another speciality but with thoracic experience. Respondents had primarily been training in thoracic surgery for 65 h. 90% of trainees responded to say they worked more than seven night shifts per month and 65% work more than seven on-call shifts per month. However, 8% of respondents answered to say that they worked >16 on-call shifts every month, and 6% of these were on call for >21 shifts per month. With this in mind, the survey also enquired as to the marital status of trainees. Twenty (42%) were single, 18 (38%) married and 9 (19%) cohabiting. No trainee was divorced.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.032
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.364
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0320.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.304 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Cardio-Thoracic SurgerySame topicSurgical Simulation and TrainingFrench-language works237,207