Variations in Physiological and Psychological Responses of Orthopaedic Surgeons and Clinical Fellows during Hip and Knee Arthroplasties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Both physical and mental stress is present within the practice of healthcare professionals, which in turn negatively affects the quality of the services provided to the population and therefore, leading to mental exhaustion of the individuals involved. Purpose: To track physiological and psychological responses to common hip and knee surgeries, and during clinic days, in a group of orthopaedic surgeons and their clinical fellows (trainees), and to compare the physiological and psychological results with baseline physiological stress tests. Methods: Heart Rate (HR), Breathing Rate (BR), and self-reported anxiety were recorded in 3 fellowship trained orthopaedic surgeons and 5 clinical fellows using a wearable Equivital EQO2 physiological monitor and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Data was recorded for days in surgery as well as clinic for 6-8 hours/day. This data was compared to baseline physiological stress tests. Results: Mean HR and percentage of heart rate maximum (%HR-max) were not significantly different between staff and fellows throughout the surgery days regardless of the role occupied during both primary Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) and Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA). For Heart rate variability (HRV), there was no difference noted between staff and fellows at any moment around and during THA, however, fellows had significantly higher variability during TKA and maintained this increased variability in the postoperative period. In THA, staff failed to show any statistical difference between the HRV in the cases they were assuming the role of primary surgeon compared to the cases they were assisting and the clinic days. On the contrary, fellows showed significantly higher HRV when they were assisting during THA compared to when they were assuming the primary surgeon role or during their clinic days. Conclusion: Different stress patterns were noted in clinical fellows compared to the staff, especially showing a higher overall HRV during TKA.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".