Physiological and psychological responses to surgery and non-surgery days in orthopaedic surgeons: A case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Performing surgical procedures can increase the physiological stress and mental strain experienced by practicing surgeons. This may affect negatively work capacity and quality of patient care by increasing the incidence of burnout, sleep disorders, fatigue and substance abuse. The purpose of this pilot case study was to track physiological and psychological responses to clinical duties in an expert arthroplasty orthopaedic surgeon.Methods: Heart rate (HR), breathing rate, heart rate variability (HRV) and anxiety ratings were observed in an expert orthopaedic surgeon using a wearable Equivital EQO2 physiological monitor and the state-trait anxiety inventory (STAI), respectively. Data was recorded for 8 surgery, 1 clinic and 1 rest day. Physiological data was recorded for 6-8 hours/day.Results: The surgeon spent significantly more time with elevated HRs on surgery days versus either clinic or rest days (10% of the day over 100 bpm). This was not the case for respiratory rate. STAI responses were significantly greater pre versus post surgery and at baseline. Psychological and physiological markers of stress were elevated prior to each surgery regardless of surgery type and task. Notably, the HR never returned to baseline on surgery days.Discussion: This study provides a baseline on which to compare procedural and trainee differences during surgical procedures. Expert surgeons may demonstrate elevated stress levels on days of surgery, as indicated by self-reported anxiety scores as well as physiologic measures. Understanding the stress and anxiety present may direct interventions that enable improved surgeon health, surgical performance, and an improved learning environment.
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 | 0.011 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".