Opportunity Costs of Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Training in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: No data exist to define the opportunity costs related to instruction in endoscopic procedures in Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada-accredited teaching centres. Academic and institutional administrators expect staff to achieve acceptable performance standards. There is a need to measure some of the effects of training activity in the establishment of such standards. OBJECTIVE: To measure the effect of resident training in colonoscopy on real procedure times and, as a secondary goal, to estimate procedural losses related to the process of training. METHODS: Real procedure times for ambulatory colonoscopy in a single academic, hospital-based endoscopy unit were documented. Times for certified endoscopy instructors functioning solo were compared with times for procedures involving trainees at several levels of colonoscopic experience. Procedural reductions associated with resident training were estimated based on the parameters derived from the results. The analysis was executed retrospectively using prospectively collected data. RESULTS: Resident training prolonged procedure times for ambulatory colonoscopy by 50%. The trainee effect was consistent, although variable in degree, among a variety of endoscopy instructors. Such increased procedure times have the potential to reduce case throughput and endoscopist remuneration. CONCLUSIONS: Resident training in colonoscopy in a Canadian certified training program has significant negative effects on case throughput and endoscopist billings. These factors should be considered in any assessment of performance in similar training environments.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".