Effect of neurosurgical residency programs on neurosurgical patient outcomes in a single health care system: a cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The evidence on the benefits and drawbacks of involving neurosurgical residents in the care of patients who undergo neurosurgical procedures is heterogeneous. We assessed the effect of neurosurgical residency programs on the outcomes of such patients in a large single-payer public health care system. METHODS: Ten population-based cohorts of adult patients in Ontario who received neurosurgical care from 2013 to 2017 were identified on the basis of procedural codes, and the cohorts were followed in administrative health data sources. Patient outcomes by the status of the treating hospital (with or without a neurosurgical residency program) within each cohort were compared with models adjusted for a priori confounders and with adjusted multilevel models (MLMs) to also account for hospital-level factors. RESULTS: A total of 46 608 neurosurgical procedures were included. Operative time was 8%-30% longer in hospitals with neurosurgical residency programs in 9 out of 10 cohorts. Thirty-day mortality was lower in hospitals with neurosurgical residency programs for aneurysm repair (odds ratio [OR] 0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.20-0.44), cerebrospinal fluid shunting (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.34-0.79), intracerebral hemorrhage evacuation (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.52-0.84), and posterior lumbar decompression (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.15-0.65) in adjusted models. The mortality rates remained significantly different only for aneurysm repair (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.05-0.69) and cerebrospinal shunting (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.21-0.85) in MLMs. Length of stay was mostly shorter in hospitals with neurosurgical residents, but this finding did not persist in MLMs. Thirty-day reoperation rates did not differ between hospital types in MLMs. For 30-day readmission rates, only extracerebral hematoma decompression was significant in MLMs (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.07-1.87). CONCLUSION: Hospitals with neurosurgical residents had longer operative times with similar to better outcomes. Most, but not all, of the differences between hospitals with and without residency programs were explained by hospital-level variables rather than direct effects of residents.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".