Current Perspectives of Urology Involvement in Renal Transplantation: A Survey of Canadian Senior Residents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The role of urology in renal transplantation has become increasingly variable with the growth of multiorgan transplant programs. We examined the involvement of urology in renal transplantation across Canada and the perceptions of urology residents. METHODS: An anonymous questionnaire was administered to all final year Canadian urology residents. The survey was devised to assess urological involvement and resident exposure to renal transplant. Responses were closed-ended and used a validated 5-point Likert scale. Descriptive statistics and Pearson's chi-square test were used to analyze the responses. RESULTS: Urologists were involved in renal transplants at 77.4% of training centers in Canada. Most residents believed that urology should remain highly involved with transplantation (77.4%) and that it should be a mandatory component of residency (64.5%). However, only half of the residents (51.6%) believed they had sufficient exposure to transplantation. Only 41.9% would be comfortable performing a transplant after residency. A minority of residents had plans for fellowship training (9.7%) or future careers (12.9%) involving renal transplant. There was a positive correlation between the involvement of urology in transplantation at a resident's training center and the opinion that urology should have an important role in this field (r=0.51, p=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Renal transplantation remains a limited component of the majority of residency programs in Canada. However, only a small number of residents intend to pursue fellowship training or a future career that involves transplantation. Consequently, a strong exposure to transplantation during residency is vital to ensuring that urology remains highly involved in renal transplantation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".