Predicting the duration of surgery and procedures in a veterinary referral center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the ability of veterinary personnel to predict the duration of surgery and associated procedures in a referral center. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective observational study. SAMPLE POPULATION: Experienced surgeons (ES; n = 2, board certified for 10+ years), inexperienced surgeons (IS; n = 2, residency completed, not board certified), anesthesia animal health technicians (AAHT; n = 3) and surgery animal health technicians (SAHT; n = 2). METHODS: Surgeons and technicians predicted surgery duration (skin incision to final stitch/staple) and total procedure duration (TPD; from induction of anesthesia to extubation). Predictions were compared to actual durations with Bland-Altman plots to assess agreement (accuracy) as indicated by bias (mean of observed differences) and limits of agreement (LOA; bias ±1.96 SD). RESULTS: All groups underestimated TPD. Experienced surgeons predicted their own TPD more accurately (bias -20.1 ± 30.4 minutes [±SD]) and more consistently (narrower LOA) than IS for their own TPD (-40.1 ± 41.0 minutes). Experienced surgeon TPD predictions by AAHT were more accurate than those by ES (bias -16.0 ± 28.9 minutes, LOA 5% narrower). Inexperienced surgeon TPD predictions by AAHT were less consistent (wider LOA) than those by IS. Own surgery duration predictions by surgeons were similar in magnitude (ES surgery duration [ESSD] 8.3 ± 18.3, IS surgery duration [ISSD] surgery duration -7.9 ± 27.2 minutes), with greater consistency by ES (LOA 30% narrower). Anesthesia animal health technician predictions were similar to those of surgeons (ESSD 3.0 ± 19.3, ISSD -9.0 ± 28.7 minutes). Surgery animal health technician predictions were similar to those of AAHT for ESSD but were less accurate for ISSD. CONCLUSION: Surgery duration was more accurately predicted than TPD, which was most accurately predicted by anesthesia technicians. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Surgical procedure planning should involve personnel best able to predict total procedure durations; in this case, anesthesia technicians. Accurate planning will promote efficient operating room and personnel use.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".