What orthopaedic surgery residents need to know about the hand and wrist?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To develop a Core Curriculum for Orthopaedic Surgery; and to conduct a national survey to assess the importance of curriculum items as judged by orthopaedic surgeons with primary affiliation non-academic. Attention for this manuscript was focused on determining the importance of topics pertaining to adult hand and wrist reconstruction. METHODS: A 281-item questionnaire was developed and consisted of three sections: 1) Validated Musculoskeletal Core Curriculum; 2) Royal College of Physician and Surgeons of Canada (RCPSC) Specialty Objectives and; 3) A procedure list. A random group of 131 [out of 156] orthopaedic surgeons completed the questionnaire. Data were analyzed descriptively and quantitatively using histograms, a Modified Hotel ling's T2-statistic 1 with p-value determined by a permutation test, and the Benjamini-Hochberg/Yekutieli procedure RESULTS: 131/156 (84%) orthopaedic surgeons participated in this study. 27/32 items received an average mean score of at least 3.0/4.0 by all respondents thus suggesting that 84% of the items are either "probably important" or "important" to know by the end of residency (SD range 0.007-0.228). The Benjamini-Hochberg procedure demonstrated that for 80% of the 32 x 31/2 = 496 possible pairs of hand and wrist questions did not appear to demonstrate the same distribution of ratings given that one question was different from that of another question. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates with reliable statistical evidence, agreement on the importance of 27/32 items pertaining to hand and wrist reconstruction is included in a Core Curriculum for Orthopaedic Surgery. Residency training programs need ensure that educational opportunities focusing on the ability to perform with proficiency procedures pertaining to the hand and wrist is taught and evaluated in their respective programs.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".