An overview and critique of the use of cumulative sum methods with surgical learning curve data
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cumulative sum (CUSUM) plots and methods have wide-ranging applications in healthcare. We review and discuss some issues related to the analysis of surgical learning curve (LC) data with a focus on three types of CUSUM statistical approaches. The underlying assumptions, benefits, and weaknesses of each approach are given. Our primary conclusion is that two types of CUSUM methods are useful in providing visual aids, but are subject to overinterpretation due to the lack of well-defined decision rules and performance metrics. The third type is based on plotting the CUSUM of the differences between observations and their average value. We show that this commonly applied retrospective method is frequently interpreted incorrectly and is thus unhelpful in the LC application. Curve-fitting methods are more suitable for meeting many of the goals associated with the study of surgical LCs.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 it