A Pilot Comparison of Standardized Online Surgical Curricula for Use in Low- and Middle-Income Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance Surgical conditions are an important component of global disease burden, due in part to critical shortages of adequately trained surgical providers in low- and middle-income countries. Objectives To assess the use of Internet-based educational platforms as a feasible approach to augmenting the education and training of surgical providers in these settings. Design, Setting, and Participants Access to two online curricula was offered to 75 surgical faculty and trainees from 12 low- and middle-income countries for 60 days. The Surgical Council on Resident Education web portal was designed for general surgery trainees in the United States, and the School for Surgeons website was built by the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland specifically for the College of Surgeons of East, Central and Southern Africa. Participants completed an anonymous online survey detailing their experiences with both platforms. Voluntary respondents were daily Internet users and endorsed frequent use of both print and online textbooks as references. Main Outcomes and Measures Likert scale survey questionnaire responses indicating overall and content-specific experiences with the Surgical Council on Resident Education and School for Surgeons curricula. Results Survey responses were received from 27 participants. Both online curricula were rated favorably, with no statistically significant differences in stated willingness to use and recommend either platform to colleagues. Despite regional variations in practice context, there were few perceived hurdles to future curriculum adoption. Conclusions and Relevance Both the Surgical Council on Resident Education and School for Surgeons educational curricula were well received by respondents in low- and middle-income countries. Although one was designed for US surgical postgraduates and the other for sub-Saharan African surgical providers, there were no significant differences detected in participant responses between the two platforms. Online educational resources have promise as an effective means to enhance the education of surgical providers in low- and middle-income countries.
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 | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".