Practice Guidelines for Operative Performance Assessments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To provide recommended practice guidelines for assessing single operative performances and for combining results of operative performance assessments into estimates of overall operative performance ability. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Operative performance is one defining characteristic of surgeons. Assessment of operative performance is needed to provide feedback with learning benefits to surgical residents in training and to assist in making progress decisions for residents. Operative performance assessment has been a focus of investigation over the past 20 years. This review is designed to integrate findings of this research into a set of recommended operative performance practices. METHODS: Literature from surgery and from other pertinent research areas (psychology, education, business) was reviewed looking for evidence to inform practice guideline development. Guidelines were created along with a conceptual and scientific foundation for each guideline. RESULTS: Ten guidelines are provided for assessing individual operative performances and 10 are provided for combing data from individual operative performances into overall judgments of operative performance ability. CONCLUSIONS: The practice guidelines organize available information to be immediately useful to program directors, to support surgical training, and to provide a conceptual framework upon which to build as the base of pertinent knowledge expands through future research and development efforts.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".