Trainee perceptions of laryngology in otolaryngology residency programs.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: There is no standardized curriculum for laryngology within otolaryngology residency programs despite the fact that laryngology is a significant portion of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada examination. Our objective was to evaluate trainee perceptions of laryngology within otolaryngology residency programs. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Canadian otolaryngology residency programs. METHODS: A Web-based, anonymous survey was conducted among otolaryngology residents. The survey was based on Royal College learning objectives for laryngology. The survey was administered using Dillman's Total Design Method and distributed in English and French. RESULTS: Sixty-four of 150 (42.6%) residents responded to the survey (55.6% male; mean age 29.3 years). About half of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the amount of didactic and clinical laryngology instruction was adequate. About 41.0% agreed or strongly agreed that the amount of operative laryngology instruction was adequate. Cited areas for improvement included injection laryngoplasty, botulinum toxin injection, medialization thyroplasty, care of the professional voice, phonosurgery, and videostroboscopy. Areas of strength included flexible nasopharyngoscopy, laryngeal anatomy, hoarseness, stridor, laryngopharyngeal reflux disease, and vocal cord paralysis. Overall, 40.7% felt somewhat comfortable providing laryngology care. The presence of a laryngology fellowship at the training program, respondent interest in pursuing a fellowship, completion of a laryngology elective, and previous laryngology research did not affect the residency experience. Senior residents are more comfortable with providing laryngology care than juniors. CONCLUSIONS: Several areas of strengths and areas for improvement in laryngology appear to exist within otolaryngology residency programs as perceived by current trainees.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".