MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3134598093 · doi:10.2106/jbjs.oa.20.00014

Difference in Resident Versus Attending Perspective of Competency and Autonomy During Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repairs

2021· review· en· W3134598093 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJBJS Open Access · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWilcoxon signed-rank testAutonomyRotator cuffPhysical therapySurgeryFamily medicineInternal medicineMann–Whitney U test

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: A noted deficiency in orthopaedic resident education is a lack of intraoperative autonomy; however, no studies exist evaluating this issue. The purpose of this study was to determine whether there is a difference between resident and attending perception of resident competency and autonomy during arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs and whether increased perceived competency leads to more autonomy. Methods: This study included 21 orthopaedic residents and 7 attendings from a single residency program. A survey was developed that included the previously validated Ottawa Surgical Competency Operating Room Evaluation (O-SCORE) and implemented novel arthroscopic rotator cuff repair questions concerning 5 key procedural steps determined by attendings. The survey assessed resident and attending perception of percent opportunity given and percent completed of each step and whether the resident could complete the surgery independently. Paired comparisons were conducted using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Agreement between residents and attendings was calculated using a linear-weighted Gwet's AC 2 . A secondary analysis investigated resident perception of autonomy stratified by attending perception of competency using Kruskal-Wallis tests. Results: One hundred forty-two surveys were completed over one academic year. Residents reported a 4-point higher median O-SCORE (34) than attendings (30; p < 0.01; agreement = 0.63). Residents perceived less opportunity compared with attendings, with a median opportunity to complete each step of 54% vs. 70% (p < 0.01; agreement = 0.39). Residents also perceived lower percent completed of the key steps compared with attendings, with medians of 52% vs. 61% (p < 0.01; agreement = 0.37). Resident perceived opportunity increased with higher attending reported O-SCOREs (p < 0.01) and percent completion of the key steps (p < 0.01). No statistically significant increase in perceived opportunity was observed the with post-graduate year (PGY) level (p = 0.35). Discussion: This study demonstrated a significant difference in perception between residents and attendings regarding resident competency and autonomy during arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs. It also demonstrated that with increasing attending perception of competency, there was an increasing resident perception of autonomy, but there was no statistically significant difference of perceived autonomy based on the PGY-level.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.851
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.105
GPT teacher head0.499
Teacher spread0.394 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it