Opportunities for International Orthopaedic Volunteerism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In low and middle-income countries (LMICs), there are often not enough orthopaedic surgeons to treat musculoskeletal conditions. International volunteerism is 1 way that the orthopaedic community seeks to meet this need. This study explored the opportunities available for orthopaedic surgeons to volunteer overseas as offered by nonprofit organizations in the United States and Canada. METHODS: A systematic internet search was conducted using 2 distinct search strategies. A website was considered a "hit" if it was that of a U.S. or Canada-based nonprofit, volunteer, or non-governmental organization that had opportunities for international orthopaedic volunteerism. Duplicate hits were eliminated to identify distinct organizations. Data regarding the work and geographical reach of the organization, as well as changes to its volunteer programs as a result of COVID-19, were extracted from each hit. RESULTS: Of the 38 distinct organizations identified in the U.S. and Canada, the most common orthopaedic subspecialties represented were pediatrics (37%), hand (24%), and arthroplasty (18%). Foot and ankle (4 organizations; 11%), sports medicine (2 organizations; 5%), and oncology (1 organization; 3%) were the least represented subspecialities. The most common regions for volunteer trips included Latin America and the Caribbean, followed by West and East Africa. Twelve organizations (32%) were identified as having a religious affiliation. For most organizations, the trip duration was a minimum of 1 week. All volunteer organizations included operative or clinical experiences as part of their trips, and the majority of organizations (58%) reported that their trips included opportunities for training local surgeons. Many organizations (71%) reported having resumed trips after halting them during the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Many opportunities exist for orthopaedic surgeons to volunteer their time and skills abroad. Future directions for the improvement of international volunteer efforts among the orthopaedic community could include expanding the number of existing volunteer opportunities and assessing the ethics, safety, efficacy, and longevity of these programs.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.002 |
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".