Resident Glaucoma Surgical Training in United States Residency Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine current trends in resident glaucoma surgical training throughout the United States. METHODS: A comprehensive survey was sent to the residency director of all 121 ACGME-accredited ophthalmology training programs in the United States. RESULTS: The mean and median number of glaucoma procedures a resident will complete by the end of their training is 8.6 and 8 respectively for trabeculectomy, 5.3 and 4 for combined trabeculectomy/phacoemulsification, and 3.6 and 2 for tube-shunts. One percent of residents will gain experience as primary surgeon on trabeculectomies during their first year, 32% during their second year, and 67% during their third year. Seventy-five percent of residents are taught more than one trabeculectomy technique by more than one staff surgeon. Eighty-four percent of residents are taught glaucoma surgery almost exclusively by fellowship-trained glaucoma surgeons. Eighty-two percent of residents use antimetabolites (mitomycin C or 5-FU) as an adjunct to trabeculectomy most or all of the time. More than 96% of resident tube-shunt procedures use Ahmed, Baerveldt, or Molteno devices. Eighty percent of residents do not perform any pediatric glaucoma surgeries. Sixty-two percent of residents rotate out of their main facility to perform glaucoma surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Residents are being exposed to glaucoma surgery early in their residency training. Most are performing a variety of different procedures and techniques, and are taught by fellowship-trained surgeons. Residents gain very little exposure to pediatric glaucoma surgery. All programs reported compliance with minimum RRC requirements for glaucoma filtering surgery.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".