Perspectives in Training and Professional Practice of Cardiac Surgery in Latin America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Introduction: There is a lack of information about cardiac surgery training and professional practice in Latin American (LATAM) countries. This study is the first comparative analysis of cardiac surgical training and professional practice across LATAM and provides the fundamentals for future academic projects of the Latin American Association of Cardiac and Endovascular Surgery (LACES). Methods: International survey-based comparative analysis of the training and professional practice of cardiac surgeons across LATAM. Trainees (residents/fellows) and staf (graduated) surgeons from LATAM countries were included. Results: A total of 289 respondents (staf surgeons N=221 [76.5%]; residents/fellows N=68 [23.5%]) from 18 different countries participated in the survey. Most surgeons (N=92 [45.3%]) reported being unsatisfied with their salaries. Most respondents (N=181 [62.6%]) stated that it was difficult to obtain a leadership position, and 149 (73.8%) stated that it was difficult to find a job after completing training. Only half of the trainee respondents (N=32 [47.1%]) reported that their program had all resident spots occupied. Only 22.1% (N=15) of residents/fellows were satisfied with their training programs. The majority (N=205 [70.9%]) of respondents would choose cardiac surgery as their specialty again. Most surgeons (N=129 [63.9%]) and residents/fellows (N=52 [76.5%]) indicated that the establishment of a LATAM cardiac surgery board examination would be beneficial. Conclusion: Modernization and standardization of training, as well as greater access to opportunities, may be required in LATAM to increase professional satisfaction of cardiac surgeons and to reduce disparities in the specialty. Such changes may enhance the regional response to the dynamic challenges in the feld.
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 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.576 | 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".