Global surgery interest and engagement in Canadian thoracic surgery practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Thoracic pathologies pose a substantial health burden in low- and middle-income countries. Compounding the high incidence of these conditions, a global shortage and unequal distribution of surgical professionals exacerbate morbidity, mortality, and disability-adjusted life years in these regions. Global thoracic surgery aims to address these disparities. This study explores the interest, engagement, and perceived importance of global surgical care among Canadian thoracic surgeons. Methods: A self-administered electronic survey was distributed to members of the Canadian Association of Thoracic Surgery. The survey assessed perceptions of global surgery, willingness to engage in international collaborations, institutional resources, and barriers to participation. Results: Thirty-three practicing thoracic surgeons participated, most of whom worked in academic centers (23 out of 33 [69.7%]). A majority (30 out of 33 [90.9%]) believed international collaboration enhances thoracic surgery. Although 48.5% (16 out of 33) were willing to travel abroad to support surgical capacity in low- and middle-income countries, and an equal percentage expressed interest in research addressing low- and middle-income countries' needs, only 21.2% (7 out of 33) had prior involvement in global thoracic surgery. Key barriers included a lack of institutional support (26 out of 33 [78.8%]), limited formal collaborative opportunities (26 out of 33 [78.8%]), inadequate funding (30 out of 33 [90.9%]), and an absence of recognized pathways for career development in global surgery (29 out of 33 [87.9%]). Conclusions: Canadian thoracic surgeons have a keen interest in global surgical initiatives; however, they face significant barriers in institutional support, resources, and accessibility of collaborative opportunities. Tackling these challenges through strengthened institutional policies, directed funding, and the establishment of a dedicated national network may enhance engagement in global thoracic surgical care.
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 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".