Concerns and perceived obstacles for females with regards to cardiac surgery residency—A survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A major difference exists between the rate of females and males entering cardiac surgery (CSx) residency in Canada. The objective of this study was to investigate the concerns and perceived obstacles of medical students with regards to CSx residency training to identify potential modifiable factors. METHODS: A 15-question web-based survey was designed to compare male to female medical students' perceptions with regards to CSx training. The survey was distributed to all 682 medical students at Western University (London, ON, Canada) enrolled during 2018 to 2019 academic year. A total of 153 students (63 males vs 90 females) completed the survey. RESULTS: More females perceived significant levels of difficulties to getting accepted in CSx residency programs (44/63 [63.8%] males vs 77/90 [85.6%] females, P = .03). As for their perception of the most difficult aspect about a career in CSx, more males expressed significant concerns about finding a job after completing the residency training (16/63 [25.3%] males vs 10/90 [11.0%] females, P = .02). A similar proportion of students expressed a strong interest in applying to a CSx residency (12/63 [19.0%] males vs 15/90 [16.7%] females, P = .83). Of these, more males expressed concerns about maintaining a work-life balance (6/12 [50%] males vs 1/15 [6.67%] female, P = .02), and more females expressed fears of not getting matched to CSx residency (3/12 [25%] males vs 11/15 [73.3%] females, P = .02). CONCLUSION: Despite showing a strong interest in completing a residency in CSx, female medical students perceive a significant fear of not getting matched to the speciality, which limits them from applying.
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 | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".