MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901754123 · doi:10.1177/1203475418814228

Aesthetic Dermatologic Surgery Training in Canadian Residency Programs

2018· article· en· W2901754123 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBody Image and Dysmorphia Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDermatologyCurriculumResidency trainingCompetence (human resources)Family medicineMedical educationContinuing educationPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND:: The public and other physicians expect dermatologists to be experts on aesthetic dermatology services. In Canada, current challenges may limit residents from achieving competency in aesthetic dermatology during their training. This may adversely affect patient safety, create medicolegal risks, and deter graduates from offering aesthetic procedures. OBJECTIVES:: The objective of this article is to characterize the curriculum, hands-on learning opportunities, and perceptions of aesthetic dermatologic training in Canadian dermatology residency training programs. METHODS:: An online survey of faculty and residents within Canadian dermatology residency programs was performed. The main outcome measures were the hours of formal aesthetic dermatology teaching, the frequency of hands-on dermatology resident training with injectables and devices, and comparing faculty and resident perspectives regarding resident aesthetic dermatology training. RESULTS:: Thirty-six faculty members (40%) and 47 residents (34%) responded to the survey. Lasers, fillers, neuromodulators, and mole removal were most commonly taught in the 10 hours or fewer of formal instruction. Residents commonly observed rather than performed procedures. High dissatisfaction among residents was reported with the quality and quantity of aesthetic dermatology training. Faculty and resident respondents supported increasing aesthetic dermatology education, and approximately 70% of residents plan to offer aesthetic services. Discounted pricing or resident-led clinics were felt to be ways to increase resident hands-on experience. CONCLUSIONS:: The standardization of core competencies in aesthetic dermatologic procedures is essential to ensure patient safety and practitioner competence. At present, formal aesthetic dermatology training in residency may be insufficient for hands-on training. The majority of dermatology faculty and resident respondents support increasing aesthetic dermatology training.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.431
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.079
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.242 · 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