The laparoscopic experience of recently trained Canadian urologists.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: While laparoscopy represents an increasingly important aspect of operative urology, the experience of Canadian urology trainees is poorly defined. The purpose of this study was to determine the level of laparoscopic training of Canadian urology trainees during residency as well as their comfort level with various laparoscopic techniques. METHODS: An e-mail-and web-based questionnaire was administered to the two most recent cohorts of Canadian-trained urologists (residencies completed in 2003 or 2004). A total of 50 questionnaires were sent. Overall laparoscopic experience and experience with specific laparoscopic tasks (e.g. colonic mobilization) were assessed. Subjects also reported on their relative comfort level (Likert scale of 1 to 5) with various laparoscopic procedures and tasks. Finally, attitudes towards the future role of laparoscopy in the practice of urology were determined. RESULTS: Thirty-six individuals (72%) responded to the questionnaire. Of the respondents, 28 (78%) were performing fellowships; of those pursuing fellowship training, 13 (36%) involved laparoscopy. Thirty-five respondents (97%) had received some laparoscopic exposure during residency; 29 (81%) had mobilized the colon, spleen or liver and 27 (75%) had dissected the renal vessels. Only 7 out of 33 respondents (21%) felt that their residency adequately prepared them to perform laparoscopy independently. There were no significant differences between the responses of the two cohorts. CONCLUSION: Most Canadian urology trainees are being exposed to laparoscopy, but more exposure is required in order to perform laparoscopy in practice. Many residents still require fellowship training to become facile in laparoscopy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".