Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The current issue of CUAJ covers a variety of important topics. In the lead article, Nickel and colleagues provide the results of a survey of Canadian urologists about BPH visits as well as the diagnostic and treatment patterns. An average urologist only saw 15 BPH patients weekly, despite the fact that most surveyed (63%) practised in the community. The average initial visit IPSS was 14 and the overwhelming majority of men were treated medically: 44.7%, 17.9% and 11.1%, respectively, received an α-blocker, 5-α reductase or both. A TURP was offered to an additional 5%. The IPSS score and the rate of therapy are elevated. This may imply that urological referrals are predominantly made for symptomatic individuals, where medical therapy is required. The effect of therapy may be implied from the repeat visit IPSS 2-point decrease relative to the initial IPSS. Unfortunately, the relatively low proportion of participants (27 completed surveys v. 86 invited = 31.4%) might be indicative of a participation bias, in which those more familiar and more interested in BPH may have been more likely to participate. Mickelson and MacNeily provide expert insight about the CanMEDS project, which for the past decade has either elated or haunted those at academic institutions. Although some CanMEDS competencies (Medical Expert, Communicator and Scholar) pose no problems in our curricula, others (Collaborator, Manager, Health Advocate and Professionalism) may trigger a conceptual dilemma that might hinder their implementation and subsequent evaluation. These difficulties are compounded by busy academic practices, which leave little time and energy for the CanMEDS competencies, especially the more nebulous ones. Further difficulties stem from the lack of validation and (or) quantification of the benefits of the CanMEDS competencies on the overall health and (or) quality of care. Finally, Dong and colleagues describe their institutional series of 77 consecutive laparoscopic pyeloplasties. The sample size and the quality of outcomes of this series are commendable, and outcomes exceed or at least parallel those from US centres of excellence. The significance of this Canadian report stems from many difficulties that Canadian urologists face in comparison with US urologists, especially for costly and technologically advanced surgical techniques (laparoscopy or robotics). Difficulties with developing Canadian surgical expertise in such fields originate from more limited patient volume relative to the United States as well as to health–economic barriers that dampen the rapid clinical implementation of modern medical technologies in Canada. Canadian laparoscopy and robotics have also clearly been affected by a more restricted patient pool and by the health–economic considerations, which make the achievement of equally successful outcomes substantially more difficult in Canada. Interinstitutional collaborations could circumvent some of the patient volume limitations and should be encouraged throughout the Canadian urological community.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,045 | 0,163 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,007 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,013 | 0,013 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,012 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,021 | 0,007 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».