Consensus-based training and assessment model for general surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Surgical education is becoming competency-based with the implementation of in-training milestones. Training guidelines should reflect these changes and determine the specific procedures for such milestone assessments. This study aimed to develop a consensus view regarding operative procedures and tasks considered appropriate for junior and senior trainees, and the procedures that can be used as technical milestone assessments for trainee progression in general surgery. METHODS: A Delphi process was followed where questionnaires were distributed to all 17 Canadian general surgery programme directors. Items were ranked on a 5-point Likert scale, with consensus defined as Cronbach's α of at least 0·70. Items rated 4 or above on the 5-point Likert scale by 80 per cent of the programme directors were included in the models. RESULTS: Two Delphi rounds were completed, with 14 programme directors taking part in round one and 11 in round two. The overall consensus was high (Cronbach's α = 0·98). The training model included 101 unique procedures and tasks, 24 specific to junior trainees, 68 specific to senior trainees, and nine appropriate to all. The assessment model included four procedures. CONCLUSION: A system of operative procedures and tasks for junior- and senior-level trainees has been developed along with an assessment model for trainee progression. These can be used as milestones in competency-based assessments.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".