Influence of Webinar-Based Learning on Practice of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: Outcomes of a Global Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: With webinars looking to be the mainstay post-pandemic, it is important to demonstrate whether webinars are, indeed, effective educational tools for professional training and skill acquisition. We aim at demonstrating, via a global survey, the efficacy of webinars on percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and how this knowledge transforms clinical practice. Methods: A structured online survey covering the following sections: (1) Demographics, (2) PCNL techniques, and (3) PCNL equipment was circulated. The target study population were practicing urologists and residents. Categorical data were presented with counts and percentages, and they were compared by using Chi-square test. Continuous data were analyzed with non-parametric methods. Respondents were dichotomized according to attendance of webinar type, attendees of dedicated PCNL webinars (Group A), or attendees of endourological webinars that discussed some aspects of PCNL (Group B). Results: A total of 303 respondents from 38 countries participated. Overall, 91.7% ( n = 278) were in Group A and 8.3% ( n = 25) were in Group B; 77.9% were younger than 50 years, whereas 51.8% had more than 10 years of urology experience. In group A, urologists of all ages, in academic institutions and private practitioners, significantly benefited in gaining knowledge about the merits of newer devices and the role of suction-assisted devices in modern PCNL. The majority of group A also reflected that by attending a dedicated PCNL-based webinar they benefited in learning newer positions for PCNL access, especially supine, and how to effectively use laser as energy devices for lithotripsy. In Group B, the only area of benefit was in lasing techniques and the use of newer lasers such as the thulium fibre laser. Conclusion: Our survey positively validates the two proposed hypothesis, that is, webinars as a medium of education do benefit practicing urologists in knowledge and the clinical practice domains. Age, experience, or place of practice is no barrier to adopting newer mediums of education such as webinars.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".