Confidence among Veterinary Students to Perform Canine Orchiectomy: The Impact of Live Animal Surgical Clinical Training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canine orchiectomy (COE) is one of the most commonly performed procedures in small animal veterinary surgery. The aim of this study was to assess veterinary students’ confidence in performing this surgery in relation to their previous surgical experience of the procedure. The hypothesis was that confidence to perform canine orchiectomies among recent veterinary graduates increased when having participated in the procedure as part of practical surgical training. A cross-sectional survey was conducted and included 65 fifth-year veterinary graduate students at the Swedish University of Agriculture in Uppsala, Sweden. The survey investigated how differences in experience of COE affected students’ confidence to perform the procedure. Of the responding students, 24.6% had performed the procedure, 47.7% had observed the procedure live, and 27.7% had neither seen nor performed the procedure. They were asked how confident they were to perform the procedure both with and without assistance. Data were compared using a non-parametric test (Mann–Whitney U test). The results showed a statistically significant increase in confidence to perform COEs in the group that had previously performed or observed COE compared with the group that had neither performed nor observed the procedure. In conclusion, veterinary students’ participation in COEs significantly contributed to their clinical confidence to perform the procedure.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 teacher head, 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".