Ability of a Complexity Scoring System to Predict Veterinary Student Surgical Procedure and Clinic Duration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Midwestern University College of Veterinary Medicine hosts student-run free clinics that offer surgical sterilization of male and female dogs and cats, with the goal of 20 surgical cases per clinic. Surgical complexity varies significantly between the surgical procedures for males (castration) and females (ovariohysterectomy) and is also influenced by weight and age for dogs. A surgical complexity scoring system was implemented to ensure the minimum number of patients while providing a diverse mix of cases. The aim of this study was to determine whether the surgical complexity scoring system accurately predicted procedure duration. Surgical records were collected between August 2016 and October 2019. Points (1–5) were assigned to each patient at the time of appointment based on species, sex, additional procedure, age and weight, and the schedule was targeted for 50 points. Each point was predicted to account for 15 minutes of surgical time. The duration for each point category was assessed via rank-sum against the predicted median. Sixteen clinics occurred during the study period, having a mean of 40.4 points and 17 patients, 29.5 (74%) of which were allocated to students. There were 264 surgeries, with 241 (91%) having complete start and end times. Surgical duration for student surgeries was not different from the estimate for each point category, with the exception of 2-points, which had a median 5.0 minutes longer than anticipated ( p = .0004). The surgical complexity scoring system is an effective tool to optimize scheduling of educational spay/neuter mobile clinics.
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 | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".