MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389996683 · doi:10.1097/hco.0000000000001112

Wellness and burnout in cardiac surgery: not black and white

2023· article· en· W4389996683 on OpenAlexaffabout
Aliya Izumi, Akachukwu Nwakoby, Raj Verma, Bobby Yanagawa

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Cardiology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBurnoutSpecialtyMedicineAutonomyPsychologyPsychiatryClinical psychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Despite a growing emphasis on burnout in medicine, there remains a paucity of data in cardiac surgery. Herein, we summarize recent data on cardiac surgeon well being and identify factors for consideration in future burnout inquiries and management. RECENT FINDINGS: Overall, 70-90% of cardiothoracic surgeons report job satisfaction in the United States. However, 35-60% still endorse burnout symptoms, and the specialty reports some of the highest rates of depression (35-40%) and suicidal ideation (7%). Such negative experiences are greater among early-stage and female surgeons and may be addressed through targeted, program-specific wellness policies. Canada's single-payer healthcare system might exacerbate surgeon burnout due to lower financial compensation and job autonomy. SUMMARY: Cardiothoracic surgeons appear simultaneously burnt out and professionally fulfilled. They report a high incidence of depression and clock in the most hours, yet the majority would choose this specialty again. These findings reveal a more nuanced state of well being than previously appreciated and speak to ambiguities in how burnout is conceived and measured. A broader examination across surgical and social contexts highlights the hierarchical nature of burnout factors and potential ways forward. Collectively, these insights can inform assessments of burnout in Canadian cardiac surgery that remain absent to date.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.807

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in CardiologySame topicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnoutFrench-language works237,207