Critical Comparison of the Quality and Content of Integrated Vascular Surgery, Thoracic Surgery, and Interventional Radiology Residency Training Program Websites: Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the move to virtual interviewing, residency websites are an important recruitment resource, introducing applicants to programs across the country and allowing for comparison. Recruitment is highly competitive from a common potential pool between vascular surgery, thoracic surgery, and interventional radiology with the ratio of applicants to positions being highest in interventional radiology, followed by thoracic surgery and lastly vascular surgery, as reported by the National Resident Matching Program. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the accessibility and availability of online content for those integrated residency programs. METHODS: A list of accredited vascular surgery, thoracic surgery, and interventional radiology residencies was obtained from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) database. Program websites were evaluated by trained independent reviewers (n=2) for content items pertaining to program recruitment and education (scored absent or present). Statistical analysis was performed in R software. RESULTS: Of ACGME-accredited programs, 56 of 61 (92%) vascular surgery, 27 of 27 (100%) thoracic surgery, and 74 of 85 (87%) interventional radiology programs had functional websites (P=.12). Vascular surgery websites contained a median of 26 (IQR 20-32) content items, thoracic surgery websites contained a median of 27 (IQR 21-32) content items, and interventional radiology websites contained a median of 23 (IQR 18-27) content items. Two content items considered highly influential to applicant program decisions are procedural experience and faculty mentorship, which were reported at 32% (18/56) and 11% (6/56) for vascular surgery, 19% (5/27) and 11% (3/27) for thoracic surgery, and 50% (37/74) and 15% (11/74) for interventional radiology (P=.008 and P=.75), respectively. Key deficits were work hours, debt management, and curriculum for interventional radiology; resident profiles, sample contracts, and research interests in vascular surgery; and operative experiences and the program director's contact and message for thoracic surgery. Interventional radiology deficits were work hours, and thoracic surgery deficits were procedural experience. Both interventional radiology and thoracic surgery websites lacked information on evaluation criteria and faculty mentorship. CONCLUSIONS: This study has uncovered key differences in the availability of online content for residencies recruiting from the same pool of applicants. Thoracic surgery has the most information, followed by vascular surgery, with interventional radiology reporting the least content. In the era of virtual interviewing from the same potential pool of applicants, programs should review and revise their web presence with the aim to increase the availability of online content to attract valuable candidates.
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 | 0.072 | 0.157 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".