Perception of plastic surgery among medical students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The misconception of plastic surgery as a purely esthetic specialty is common among medical students, interns, and the general population. Therefore, this questionnaire-based cross-sectional study was aimed at assessing the perception of plastic surgery among medical students and interns in Saudi Arabia and Canada. This study aims to elicit a thorough grasp of the numerous pathologies addressed by plastic surgeons from medical students and interns. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted in February 2020, targeting medical students and interns in Saudi Arabia: Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, King Abdulaziz University, and Canada (McGill). Paper and online-based questionnaires were distributed among participants, featuring 16 medical scenarios requiring participants to select the specialty that best fit each case. Nine of these scenarios were handled mainly by plastic surgeons. Results: All-inclusive, 729 students and interns answered the questionnaire. The fact that just three of the nine plastic surgery scenarios were accurately selected by the participants suggests that most medical students and interns need to understand the range of services that plastic surgeons can provide. Conclusion: This study concluded that there is an overlap between different surgical specialties in the field. Thus training initiatives and increased exposure to plastic surgery subspecialties throughout medical school and educational programs are needed to establish boundaries and dispel misconceptions about this specialty.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".