Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Growth in the profession of medical physics (and in the number of medical physicists) is stunning. In the United States, accredited graduate and residency educational programs in medical physics cannot keep up with the current demand for medical physicists in hospitals and clinics, creating a concern in some circles that some positions are being filled by physicists with less than adequate training and experience. The demand for medical physicists is fueled in part by the technological explosions in radiation oncology and diagnostic imaging that have occurred over the past couple of decades. It is also due in part to an enhanced sensitivity of healthcare professionals and administrators to the public demand for quality, safety, and accountability in medicine. The growth in medical physics is not unique to the United States; similar patterns are seen in other economically developed countries such as Canada, Australia, and members of the European Union. Growth in medical physics is not confined to these countries, however. It is also present to varying degrees in many countries where medical physicists are increasing in numbers and forming organizations to share experiences and learn from one another. For example, medical physics groups have recently formed or are forming in the United Arab Emirates, Mongolia, Uganda, Vietnam, Egypt, Cameroon, Czech Republic, Bahrain, Ethiopia, Kenya, Libya, and Tunisia, among many others. Assisting these groups in their formative efforts is the International Organization of Medical Physics (IOMP), a federation of medical physicists and medical physics organizations from 76 countries around the world. The number of medical physicists in these countries is estimated to range from in the United States to less than ten in countries such as Panama, Jordan, Nepal, Moldava, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, and Uganda. The IOMP represents over medical physicists worldwide and is dedicated to disseminating scientific and technical information, fostering the education and professional development of medical physicists, and promoting quality healthcare services for patients. The IOMP was formed in 1963, and in 1980 joined with the International Federation of Medical and Biological Engineers (IFMBE) to form the International Union of Physical and Engineering Sciences in Medicine (IUPESM) as an umbrella organization for both organizations. In 1999 the IUPESM became a member of the International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU), and in 2005 the IOMP formed a relationship with the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics (IUPAP) in order to strengthen collaboration of medical physicists with other physicists who have similar interests. The IOMP also has relations with international organizations such as the International Society of Radiology, International Commission on Radiological Protection, International Commission of Radiation Units and Measurements, and the International Atomic Energy Agency. Through these organizations and relationships, every medical physicist has a pathway to engage medical physicists, other physicists, and biomedical engineers in the exploration of common interests and in the sharing of knowledge and experience in teaching, research, clinical service, and professional development. Every medical physicist who is a member of any of the 76 organizations (for example, the American Association of Physicists in Medicine or the Canadian Organization of Medical Physicists) constituting the IOMP is a member of the IOMP and, through that membership, has ties to the IUPESM, ICSU, and IUPAP. The IOMP has a semiannual newsletter, Medical Physics World, in which various programs and activities in medical physics around the world are described. As medical physics has expanded worldwide, so has the number of journals publishing original research in medical physics. Included in these journals (with their country of origin in parentheses) are Physics in Medicine and Biology (United Kingdom), Medical Engineering & Physics (United Kingdom), Journal of Medical Physics (India), Meditsiuskaya Physica (Russia), Biomedical Imaging and Intervention Journal (Malaysia), Australasian Physical and Engineering Sciences in Medicine (Australia), Zeitschrift fur Medizinische Physik (Germany), Physica Medica (Italy), Fisica Medica (Spain), Klinische Fysica (Netherlands), Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics (United States) and, of course, Medical Physics (United States). The Publications Committee of the IOMP (for which I serve as chair) is inviting the editors of these journals to participate in an electronic forum where ideas and challenges related to scientific publishing in medical physics can be shared and discussed. The international character of medical physics is reflected each month in the pages of this journal. More than half of the 800 manuscripts submitted to Medical Physics in 2005 originated in 44 countries outside the United States. Papers originating from outside North America are the most rapidly growing segment of submitted manuscripts, in part because electronic submission and review has greatly eased the submission process for the authors of these papers. But it is also true that research in medical physics is increasing in many countries, and this expansion is yielding more papers submitted to medical physics journals in general. Medical Physics is the official science journal of the AAPM and is an official science journal of the Canadian Organization of Medical Physicists, the Canadian College of Physicists in Medicine, and the IOMP. Several members of the journal's editorial board are from countries other than the United States, and additional international members are desired, especially from Asian countries. Medical physics is truly an international discipline, and Medical Physics is pleased to represent the discipline as an international journal. As a profession, we can be proud of the progress we have made towards these objectives, but we also must remain cognizant of the opportunities presented to us to do even more in the future.
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 | 0,005 | 0,019 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,006 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,011 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,009 | 0,015 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,014 | 0,011 |
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 ».