MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3198472085 · doi:10.1177/15533506211039682

Transition to Independent Surgical Practice and Burnout Among Early Career General Surgeons

2021· article· en· W3198472085 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Mohammed Firdouse, Caitlin C Chrystoja, Sandra de Montbrun, Jaime Escallón, Tulin Cil

Bibliographic record

VenueSurgical Innovation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiversity and Career in Medicine
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsMedicineBurnoutTransition (genetics)SurgeryClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The transition from surgical residency to independent practice is a challenging period that has not been well studied. Methods: An email invitation to complete a 55-item survey and the Maslach Burnout Inventory–Human Services Survey (MBI-HSS) was sent to early career general surgeons across Canada. The chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test was used to compare demographic and survey characteristics with burnout. Multivariable logistic regression was performed. Results: Of the 586 surgeons contacted, 88 responded (15%); 51/88 surgeons (58.0%) were classified as burnt out according to the MBI-HSS. Most surgeons (68.2%) were not confident in their abilities to handle the business aspect of practice. The majority (60.2%) believed that a transition to independent practice program would be beneficial to recent surgical graduates. Conclusions: Our data showed high prevalence of burnout among recently graduated general surgeons across Canada. Further, respondents were not confident in their managerial and administrative skills required to run a successful independent practice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.178

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSurgical InnovationSame topicDiversity and Career in MedicineFrench-language works237,207