An assessment of program information on pediatric anesthesiology fellowship websites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There have been multiple studies that evaluated the websites of various fellowships and many of them were lacking specific details.1-3 These types of studies are crucial since applicants rely heavily on fellowship program websites for information. Addressing the shortcomings of the website material presented will assist applicants in making informed decisions about where to apply and selecting the program that best suits their needs. Fellowship programs can also benefit from this study by identifying areas for improvement in their website content to effectively showcase their program's strengths and attract potential applicants. This study aims to evaluate and compare the information available between different pediatric anesthesiology fellowship websites to identify areas that need to be improved. There were 61 ACGME pediatric anesthesiology fellowships in the United States at the time of this inquiry. Researchers then used the search engine, Google, to gather websites of the 61 available pediatric anesthesiology fellowship programs. Two researchers were only able to find 60 of the websites through Google. 24 different criteria were used to evaluate each pediatric anesthesiology fellowship website that similar studies used to critique other fellowship webpages.1, 4, 5 Two researchers independently evaluated whether or not the criteria were fulfilled by the websites as shown in Table 1. In the event of a disagreement between these evaluators, a third impartial researcher settled the discrepancy. The results with each criterion are shown in Table 1. The websites, on average, covered 13.19 out of 24 criteria (54.9%), with individual counts ranging from 8 to 20. 40 out of the 60 websites (66.7%) had more than 50% of the information available. Although most of the 60 websites met more than 50 percent of the criteria, there were a few categories that many websites lacked such as case log numbers, call responsibilities, clinic/office responsibilities, alumni, and summary. The decision was made to not assess the quality of the information to ensure objectivity in the evaluation process. While our researchers did not pinpoint the specific information sought by pediatric fellows when they were applying, addressing specific details that are underreported provides opportunities for enhancing the site because they can potentially yield valuable insights. For example, case logs allow applicants to be informed about the procedures they will be performing Providing applicants with information about their responsibilities in clinics, including pain or perioperative settings, and during on-call periods provides perspective into a fellow's daily routine and anticipated work–life balance. Alumni information allows applicants to contact previous graduates for details of the fellowship experience, ascertain their personal impressions of the training program, examine the career trajectory of previous trainees, and potential for their own career development based on graduate performance. Program summaries on websites would provide an excellent way for applicants to quickly identify points that make the fellowships unique, without having to browse throughout the whole website. By enhancing the content and presentation of websites, program directors can empower applicants to become more knowledgeable about what each program offers, ultimately fostering a more effective and mutually beneficial selection process. The data that support the findings of this study are available in Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) at https://apps.acgme.org/ads/Public/Reports/ReportRun. These data were derived from the following resources available in the public domain: Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), https://apps.acgme.org/ads/Public/Reports/Report/1.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".