Canadian Vascular Surgeons' perspective on the impact on device representatives in the operating room
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To understand the current attitudes of Canadian vascular surgeons toward device sales representatives (DSRs) and their presence in the operating room (OR) during standard infrarenal endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) cases. Methods A survey was created using a 5-point Likert response scale related to the perceived benefits and ethical concerns of DSR presence in the OR. Participants were contacted via the Canadian Society for Vascular Surgery and were stratified into subgroups based on academic or community setting and duration of practice. Results Of the surveyed members, 68 vascular surgeons responded, yielding a response rate of 40%. Of these, 46 (67.6%) had more than 10 years of experience and 39 (57.4%) worked in academic settings. Overall, participants viewed DSR as having several benefits, including case efficiency, planning, and device-specific knowledge (65.6%, 55.2%, and 82.8%, respectively). The majority did not perceive significant ethical issues (81.8%), although they felt their colleagues were more biased by DSR relationships (74.5%). Of those who did perceive significant ethical issues with DSR presence, a greater proportion were academic (27% vs 5%; P = .04). The majority of surgeons surveyed stated they would continue their practice of having DSR present during standard infrarenal EVARs. However, of those who were likely to discontinue this practice, a greater proportion were also academic (35% vs 4%; P = .01). Duration of practice showed no significant differences with regard to perceived benefits or harms. Conclusions With a few differences based on practice modality, most Canadian vascular surgeons perceive significant benefit to DSR presence during standard EVAR cases. Although some respondents recognize potential areas of bias, they feel they are not as subject to these pressure as their peers.
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".