MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2314186696 · doi:10.1177/1090820x12467796

Commentary on: Cosmetic Surgery Training in Canadian Plastic Surgery Residencies: Are We Training Competent Surgeons?

2012· letter· en· W2314186696 on OpenAlexaffabout
Derek T. Ford

Bibliographic record

VenueAesthetic Surgery Journal · 2012
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiversity and Career in Medicine
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlastic surgeryPrivate practiceFeelingTraining (meteorology)SurgeryMedical educationGeneral surgeryFamily medicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the article titled “Cosmetic Surgery Training in Canadian Plastic Surgery Residencies: Are We Training Competent Surgeons?” the authors discuss the feelings of Canadian plastic surgery residents toward their training in cosmetic surgery and their comfort level with the discipline, as self-reported in a survey. Their results suggested that less than 20% of graduating residents felt adequately prepared to integrate cosmetic surgery into future practice. Furthermore, the level of confidence was lowest with facial and nonsurgical procedures. Just less than half of graduating residents surveyed planned on entering private practice, and their expectation to offer cosmetic surgery as a component of private practice was high. The findings of this study highlight the importance of formal teaching in cosmetic surgery. Currently, most programs have a formal cosmetic surgery rotation, but residents felt their involvement in patient care was less than 20%. Resident cosmetic clinics and elective rotations were thought to enhance education in cosmetic surgery. Assuming a resident/fellow cosmetic surgery clinic model, training residents in cosmetic plastic surgery does present several unique challenges. The surgeon overseeing a cosmetic operation performed by a resident is often not financially compensated for his or her time. Prospective patients are cautious, knowing that a surgeon in training will be performing their elective and self-paid cosmetic procedure. Although offered at a reduced rate, the overhead fee charged to the patient may be a barrier to booking surgery. This may result in a less-than-desirable flow of patients through the clinic. When complications occur, the responsibility ultimately falls on the supervising faculty surgeon. These are just some reasons why resident clinics may not be universally incorporated into resident training programs. The plastic surgery resident training program at the University of Toronto has an established resident rotation that is 4 months in duration and a fellowship program that is 6 months in duration. This is a comprehensive rotation whereby the resident works alongside an aesthetic surgery fellow. We believe the success of such a rotation relies on thorough simulation of an actual practice. This includes exposure as primary surgeon and assistant with simultaneous intraoperative teaching, evaluation of patients through resident-conducted consultations, continuity of patient care with close follow-up, and provision of nonsurgical procedures in a clinic setting. Exposure to the full spectrum of aesthetic surgery, including procedures for the face, breast, and body, is important. This clinical experience dovetails into a seminar series covering the complete spectrum of cosmetic surgery. Although elective rotations offer further exposure to the diversity of cosmetic surgery, often the trainee is left observing with minimal clinical involvement. It is difficult to specify a number of surgical case experiences after which a resident is comfortable with a given cosmetic operation. It is expected that confidence and expertise are gained through each patient interaction and will continue to develop well into independent practice. Our residents and fellows perform approximately 20 to 30 procedures as primary surgeons during their rotation. However, it is more important to recognize that clinical comfort is multifactorial and is also dependent on patient evaluation, follow-up, assisting other surgeons, and small-group topic-based teaching. After 6 months, our fellows (subjectively speaking) feel comfortable incorporating cosmetic surgery into their practice. The article by Chivers et al identifies that improvements are needed in the current teaching of cosmetic surgery in Canadian plastic surgery residency programs. Despite the potential challenges faced when teaching cosmetic surgery, improvement is necessary to maintain leadership in this important component of our specialty. The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and publication of this article.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.998
Threshold uncertainty score0.160

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0350.026
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.157 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
DomainEvaluation
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAesthetic Surgery JournalSame topicDiversity and Career in MedicineFrench-language works237,207