Cardiothoracic Surgery Training: An Honest and Anonymous Assessment of the Trainee Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective(s): Trainee assessments aim to identify areas for improvement and address problems within training programs. However, effectiveness is limited by an inability to assess programs anonymously. We hypothesized concern for undesired repercussions may discourage honest responses. To test this, we conducted a comprehensive survey of trainees to assess their educational and work-related experiences anonymously. Design: A 51-question survey was distributed electronically to the Thoracic Surgery Residents Association (TSRA) membership. Questions were multiple-choice. The Likert scale was utilized. Setting: The survey was accessed electronically and was completed by participants nationwide. Participants: Trainees were incentivized to complete the survey with the opportunity to receive a $50 gift card or TSRA textbook. 109 of 551 cardiothoracic surgery trainees completed the survey. Results: 109 trainees (109/551, 19.8%) completed the survey. 57.8% of respondents reported complying with work hour restrictions, but 32.2% (n=35) did not feel comfortable reporting violations honestly. The majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that their program was preparing them to independently perform low risk cardiac (4.19 [1.22]) and thoracic (4.08 [1.13]) cases independently, 30.3% of chief residents reported planning to pursue additional training. 66% of respondents stated they would select the same program again. 33% reported having high morale, 47.7% moderate and 19.3% poor or declining morale. 84.4% of respondents did not feel their race or gender significantly impacted their training, 26.6% reported systemic bias in recruitment of new trainees or faculty, and 38.5% believed there was inadequate diversity among faculty and trainees. 30.3% reported experiencing verbal or physical harassment by an attending or fellow (14.7%). Conclusions: Despite reporting an overall positive operative experience, a significant number of trainees plan to pursue additional training. The survey identifies important areas for attention including underreporting of issues related to diversity, as well as verbal and physical harassment by fellows and attendings.
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 | 0.023 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".