Project description:BackgroundOn June 17, 2016, providing medical assistance in dying became legal in Canada. This controversial change has had reverberating implications for the entire medical community. This is especially true for physicians that regularly deal with end-of-life decisions, among them neurosurgical and orthopedic spine surgeons, whose patients suffer from a variety of debilitating conditions. With this study we sought to document the opinions of Canadian spine surgeons in hopes of better understanding the sentiment within the speciality towards this change and assess how it evolves over time.MethodsA cross-sectional survey was sent out to members of the Canadian Spine Society (CSS). The survey encompassed 21 questions pertaining to opinions and attitudes regarding MAID and different facets of the legislation.ResultsA total of 51 surgeons responded to the survey, comprised of a mix of orthopedic surgeons (68.6%), pediatric orthopedic surgeons (5.9%), and neurosurgeons (21.6%), practicing all across Canada. The majority support the patients' right to obtain MAID (62.8%) and the right of physicians to participate (82.4%). Most also support the right to conscientious objection (90.1%). The results were split on duty to refer patients for MAID (49.0%). Respondents were also divided on whether they could foresee themselves referring to a MAID service, with 37.2% responding yes. A small minority of respondents (3.9%) felt they could see themselves actively involved in MAID.ConclusionsAt the advent of legal MAID, the majority of members of the CSS supported both the right of patients to participate in MAID and the right of physicians to provide this service if they so choose, while still respecting the principle of conscientious objection. Of note, only a small minority were willing to be actively involved. This survey provides a useful baseline of opinions in this practice area and will be used to analyze changes over the next 10 years.
Project description:Background contextAcademic meetings serve as an opportunity to present and discuss novel ideas. Previous studies have identified factors predictive of publication without generating predictive models. Machine learning (ML) presents a novel tool capable of generating these models. As such, the objective of this study was to use ML models to predict subsequent publication of abstracts presented at a major surgical conference.Study design/settingDatabase study.MethodsAll abstracts from the North American Spine Society (NASS) annual general meetings (AGM) from 2013-2015 were reviewed. The following information was extracted: number of authors, institution, location, conference category, subject category, study type, data collection methodology, human subject research, and FDA approval. Abstracts were then searched on the PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus databases for publication. ML models were trained to predict whether the abstract would be published or not. Quality of models was determined by using the area under the receiver operator curve (AUC). The top ten most important factors were extracted from the most successful model during testing.ResultsA total of 1119 abstracts were presented, with 553 (49%) abstracts published. During training, the model with the highest AUC and accuracy metrics was the partial least squares (AUC of 0.77±0.05, accuracy of 75.5%±4.7%). During testing, the model with the highest AUC and accuracy was the random forest (AUC of 0.69, accuracy of 67%). The top ten features for the random forest model were (descending order): number of authors, year, conference category, subject category, human subjects research, continent, and data collection methodology.ConclusionsThis was the first study attempting to use ML to predict the publication of complete articles after abstract presentation at a major academic conference. Future studies should incorporate deep learning frameworks, cognitive/results-based variables and aim to apply this methodology to larger conferences across other fields of medicine to improve the quality of works presented.