Training for Awake, Office‐Based Laryngeal Procedures—The Laryngology Fellow's Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim was to explore recent laryngology graduates' perspectives on their experience, competency, and challenges learning office-based procedures during fellowship training in the United States and Canada. METHODS: Anonymous 22-item questionnaire survey was distributed electronically to fellowship-trained laryngologists having completed fellowship within past 5 years. RESULTS: Ninety fellowship-trained laryngologists between 2018 and 2022 were surveyed. Response rate was 48.9% (n = 44), 1 declined participation, with 20 different fellowship programs represented. Fellows were frequently provided the opportunity to act as primary surgeon for most procedures, except for laryngeal botulinum toxin injection, diagnostic laryngeal electromyography, trans-nasal esophagoscopy, secondary tracheoesophageal puncture, and high-resolution pharyngeal manometry. A majority reported high (n = 27, 62.8%) or moderate (n = 12, 27.9%) confidence with vocal fold injection augmentation. Various techniques were taught: transoral (74.4%), cricothyroid (74.4%), thyrohyoid (69.8%), transcartilagenous (14.0%), and catheter-needle (25.6%). Numerous statistically significant associations with independent procedure involvement and competence were identified. Laryngeal botulinum toxin injection was a procedure performed with high frequency but low volume of independent fellow involvement, and the procedure with which fellows reported wanting more practice learning. Most common training barriers included patient being awake, patient consenting to trainee performing the procedure, and the technical challenge/complexity of the procedure. Teaching methods/tools largely focused on informal debriefing (97.3%) and case by case troubleshooting (81.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Laryngology fellows are well trained with favorable perceived levels of competence for numerous office-based procedures, particularly vocal fold injection augmentation. Procedures for which fellows reported a low level of independent participation trended towards lower perceived competency. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5 Laryngoscope, 134:873-881, 2024.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".