Peritoneal Dialysis University for Surgeons: A Peritoneal Access Training Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: ♦ BACKGROUND: A functioning catheter is vital to the success of peritoneal dialysis (PD). Catheter complications related to the insertion procedure remain a major hindrance to PD utilization. Most catheters are placed by surgeons. Suboptimal catheter outcomes appear to be related to inadequate training and experience during surgical residency and the absence of educational opportunities to remedy this deficit once the surgeon is in practice. ♦ OBJECTIVE: The aim of this report is to describe a 1-day comprehensive surgeon training program in PD access surgery and to convey the results of the first 7 courses. ♦ METHODS: Needs assessment data served as the foundation for formulating course objectives and content. A disease-based approach to PD was taken to provide both didactic instruction and laboratory exercises. Surgical simulators permitted skills development for each key task in catheter placement. Educational outcomes were measured with pre- and post-tests, course evaluation, and follow-up survey. ♦ RESULTS: Seven courses were attended by 134 surgeons with an average faculty to participant ratio of 1:4 during hands-on laboratory sessions. Pre- and post-testing demonstrated a class-average normalized educational gain of 50%. On a 5-point Likert scale, the course was scored highly on 14 areas of evaluation with average responses ranging from 4.4 to 4.9. A follow-up survey conducted a mean of 28 months after the programs revealed significantly increased utilization of all 10 course-targeted PD access skills. Participants gave mean scores of 4.6 for improved confidence in case management and 4.4 for better catheter outcomes. ♦ CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive 1-day peritoneal access training course can produce long-term self-assessed improvement in surgical management and PD catheter outcomes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".