MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387952952 · doi:10.21037/asj-22-33

The current status of simulation training and certification for thoracic surgery in Europe: a scoping review

2023· review· en· W4387952952 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tamim Ahmad Haidari, Lars Konge, René Horsleben Petersen

Bibliographic record

VenueAME Surgical Journal · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical Simulation and Training
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCertificationMedicineCardiothoracic surgeryMEDLINECurriculumMedical educationBoard certificationGeneral surgerySurgeryResidency trainingContinuing educationPsychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The past two decades have seen increasingly rapid advances in new surgical techniques and procedures in thoracic surgery. One of the greatest challenges is to educate and train thoracic surgeons in a safe and patient-free environment. The content of surgical training and education differs significantly among European countries. A common European training and certification structure might provide better opportunities to educate competent thoracic surgeons in the future. The objective of this article is to summarize the current state of educational programs and certification within thoracic surgery in Europe. Methods: A comprehensive search of the literature was performed, using PubMed Database, Medline, Cochrane and Google Scholar from May 2000 until June 2023, focusing on thoracic surgery education and training, thoracic surgery education and certification in Europe, certification, and training of general thoracic surgeons in Europe, and Canadian and American training and certification in thoracic surgery. Results: A total of 560 articles were retrieved from PubMed/Medline, Google Scholar, and Cochrane. After removing the duplicates, 365 articles were scanned based on their title and abstract. Three hundred and twelve articles did not meet the inclusion criteria for this study. Fifty-three full text articles were assessed for eligibility and a total of 25 articles were selected for this study. In addition, we must accept the adopt advances in thoracic surgery and evolve the modern training program in thoracic surgery. There is a need for revision and refining of thoracic surgeon’s curricula across Europe. By harmonizing the training programs and certification in Thoracic Surgery across Europe, we provide competent thoracic surgeons with an equalized and better patient outcome. Conclusions: There is a need for a structured and evidence-based surgical curriculum, which includes simulation training to provide competent surgeons in Europe. Certification and examination boards with hands-on courses may ensure the quality of knowledge and help trainees gain basic and advanced surgical skills.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score0.575

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.419
GPT teacher head0.523
Teacher spread0.104 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAME Surgical JournalSame topicSurgical Simulation and TrainingFrench-language works237,207