Orthopaedic Surgery and Indusry: What our Potential Patients Believe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Physician and surgeon involvement in industry has received considerable attention in recent decades. In this study, we outline the perspective of the general US population regarding (1) disclosure, (2) ownership, and (3) compensation between physicians/surgeons and industry. We hypothesize that the general population would be largely supportive of the physician/surgeon-industry relationship. METHODS: An online, survey-based, descriptive study was conducted through a crowdsourcing platform, Amazon Mechanical Turk. Survey respondents were presented with a seven-item questionnaire inquiring about the physician/surgeon and industry relationship. An "attention check" question was included; those who failed this question were excluded. Descriptive statistics were used to assess the data and a McNemar chi-squared test for paired, dichotomous data. RESULTS: A total of 993 respondents were included. Survey responses are summarized in Table 1. 70.6% of respondents stated that it was "important" or "extremely important" to disclose that the patient be informed whether implants used in surgery had been developed by the operating surgeon. 71.1% of respondents reported that it was "important" or "extremely important" to disclose partial ownership within industry. Seventy-one percent of respondents stated it was "important" or "extremely important" to disclose royalty payments pertaining to surgical implants. 95.6% of respondents suggested that it was acceptable for surgeons to accept free airfare and lodging, and 95.2% of respondents stated that it was acceptable for the surgeon to be compensated for time away from practice to learn about new equipment. DISCUSSION: In our survey of 993 respondents, we found that relationships with industry are considered acceptable if appropriate disclosure is given to patients. We also found that although respondents suggested that physicians and surgeons may be influenced by a free meal, compensation for trips to try new equipment and time spent away from practice is considered appropriate. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2c, Ecological studies.
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 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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".