Do Medical Students Receive Adequate Otolaryngology Training? A Canadian Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Otolaryngology—head and neck surgery (OHNS) training has been found to be underrepresented in medical school curricula. The study aimed to assess (i) students’ clinical OHNS exposure, (ii) their confidence managing OHNS conditions, and (iii) the correlation between OHNS exposure and confidence managing OHNS conditions. Methods: Fourth-year medical students at two Canadian Universities completed a survey assessing baseline characteristics, OHNS training, and confidence managing OHNS conditions. Results: Of 87 returned surveys, 46 students had no clinical OHNS exposure, while 29 felt there was adequate OHNS exposure. The majority of students lacked confidence recognizing conditions requiring emergent referral. Students with greater OHNS training had greater confidence managing OHNS conditions ( r = 0.267, P = .012). Conclusion: The majority of medical students have minimal OHNS exposure. Students with greater OHNS exposure have greater confidence managing OHNS conditions. A review of Canadian medical school curricula is warranted to ensure adequate OHNS exposure.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".