A 20-Year Update on the Practice of Thoracic Surgery in Canada: A Survey of the Canadian Association of Thoracic Surgeons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This study provides an update to a landmark 2004 report describing demographics, training, and trends in adherence to thoracic surgery practice standards in Canada. Methods: An updated questionnaire was administered to all members of the Canadian Association of Thoracic Surgeons via email (n=142, compared to n=68 in 2004). Our report incorporates internal data from Ontario Health and the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer. Results: Forty-eight surgeons completed the survey (male, 70.8%; mean±standard deviation age, 50.3±9.3 years). This represents a 33.8% response rate, compared to 64.7% in 2004. Most surgeons (69%) served a patient population of over 1 million per center; 32%-34% reported an on-call ratio of 1:4-1:5 days, and the average weekly hours worked was 56.4±11.9. Greater access to dedicated geographic units per center (73% in 2021 vs. 53% in 2004) has improved thoracic-associated services and house staff, notably endoscopy units (100% vs. 91%), with 73% of respondents having access to both endobronchial and endoscopic ultrasound. Access to thoracic radiology has also improved, particularly regarding positron emission tomography scanners per center (76.9% vs. 13%). Annual case volumes for lung (255 vs. 128), esophageal (41 vs. 19), and mediastinal resections (30 vs. 13), along with hiatal hernia repair (45 vs. 20), have increased substantially despite reports of operating room availability and radiology as rate-limiting steps. Conclusion: This survey characterizes compliance with current practice standards, addressing the needs of thoracic surgeons across Canada. Over 85% of respondents were aware of the 2004 compliance paper, and 35% had applied for resources and equipment in response.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".