MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Perceptions and Practices for Thyroid Surgical Reporting: A Canadian National Study

2022· article· en· W4306253556 on OpenAlexaffabout
Akie Watanabe, Eitan Prisman, Elliot J. Mitmaker, George Walker, Jonn Wu, Anne Nguyen, Sam M. Wiseman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American College of Surgeons · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineThyroid cancerDiseaseThyroidectomyGeneral surgeryThyroidFamily medicineSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Information documented in narrative surgical reports influences the management of thyroid disease but often lacks consistency. This study aimed to investigate national perceptions of current thyroid surgical reporting practices and identify frequently reported items. METHODS: Surgeons who perform thyroidectomy were surveyed for their opinions on current surgical reporting practices and asked to provide de-identified narrative reports dictated for benign and/or malignant disease. Survey results and report elements were summarized using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Forty-two surgeons from 9 Canadian provinces were surveyed with 89% performing >16 thyroidectomies annually. Narrative reporting was used by 88% of surgeons, of whom 35% expressed dissatisfaction and 100% expressed interest in using a synoptic template if available. Those who already used synoptic templates (12%) reported 100% satisfaction (Fig. 1). Among 142 narrative reports evaluated, 76% were dictated for thyroid operation performed for possibly malignant or malignant disease and 30% for benign disease. Essential surgical reporting elements including the status of parathyroid glands (75% to 79%) and recurrent laryngeal nerve(s) (100%) were adequately reported, but disease extent (46%) and tumor size (13%) were not. Additionally, the presence/absence of gross extrathyroidal cancer extension (36%) and the presence of residual cancer (6%) were inconsistently documented in reports for malignant disease. Nonessential elements such as incision placement (100%) were routinely reported.Figure 1.: Summary of current reporting options and surgeon satisfaction.CONCLUSION: Narrative surgical reporting dominates current practice but fails to document important prognostic information. Development of an accepted standardized national synoptic operative template would benefit quality of patient care, improve consistency and patient outcomes, and boost user satisfaction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.138

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.209
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
DomainReporting
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American College of SurgeonsSame topicPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207