MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406401023 · doi:10.1097/sla.0000000000006630

Perspectives, Experiences, and Opportunities of Academic Surgeons in the Era of Health Care Corporatization

2025· article· en· W4406401023 on OpenAlexaff
Sara Sakowitz, Syed Shahyan Bakhtiyar, Nicholas S. Sienna, Saad Mallick, Konmal Ali, Peyman Benharash, Richard Jolly, Timothy R. Donahue

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Surgery · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealth and Medical Research Impacts
Canadian institutionsKellogg's (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporatizationHealth careMedicineAutonomyExcellenceMedical educationPublic relationsViewpointsNursingPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To characterize contemporary surgeons' viewpoints and perspectives on the academic mission during health care corporatization. BACKGROUND: Academic surgery, traditionally driven by the tripartite missions of excellence in clinical care, scientific research, and education, faces increasing challenges from a corporatized health care environment. While previous studies have addressed the financial aspects of corporatization, a comprehensive evaluation of academic surgeons' attitudes and experiences remains lacking. METHODS: An online survey was distributed to a national sample of academic surgical department chairs and program directors assessing their views, perspectives, and experiences with health care corporatization. We also analyzed trends in National Institutes of Health funding and abstract submissions to the Academic Surgical Congress. RESULTS: Of 105 respondents, 72.9% believe corporatization negatively impacts academic surgery. Among program directors, 79.1% feel corporatization emphasizes clinical productivity over research and teaching. Similarly, 82.8% of department chairs report their faculty often must prioritize clinical duties over other academic responsibilities.Qualitative analysis reveals that surgeons perceive corporatization as a significant barrier to achieving their goals. Many feel that profit has become "king," reducing their roles to "cogs in a wheel."While overall National Institutes of Health funding increased, the proportion awarded to surgical departments remained largely unchanged from 2006 to 2023 (2.7% vs 2.8%, P = 0.94). In addition, the proportion of basic science abstracts submitted to the Academic Surgical Congress declined by 37.9%. CONCLUSIONS: Corporatization has had a profound impact on surgeons' perceptions of their roles, responsibilities, and autonomy. Surgical departments must take intentional steps to preserve the multidimensional mission of the academic surgeon.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.010
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.532
GPT teacher head0.495
Teacher spread0.037 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of SurgerySame topicHealth and Medical Research ImpactsFrench-language works237,207