MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W114134642

The interventional radiologist as "clinician": what does it mean? CanMEDS for the interventional radiologist.

2006· article· en· W114134642 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mark O. Baerlocher, Murray Asch

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiology practices and education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSpecialtyInterventional radiologyRadiologyPatient careContext (archaeology)Health careMedical educationMedical physicsNursingFamily medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is a large movement within the field of interventional radiology (IR) and various related organizations (including the Society of Interventional Radiology and the Canadian Interventional Radiology Association) for interventional radiologists to become more clinical. This is seen as the necessary next step for the specialty as it continues to evolve and grow. Here, we take a novel approach to the implications of becoming a full-fledged clinician. We do this in the context of the Canadian Medical Education Directions for Specialists (CanMEDS) framework, developed in the early 1990s with the support of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (RCPSC) in response to changing dynamics within health care and medical education. The CanMEDS framework defines the 7 domains of competency or roles of the specialist physician: professional, manager, advocate, collaborator, scholar, communicator, and medical expert. We suggest that these roles can be adapted to define the basis of the clinician interventional radiologist, and we believe they may be employed to teach current and future IR trainees how to fill what is hoped to be their future role. We provide a brief history of the CanMEDS project, define the 7 domains of competencies, and summarize how they apply to the clinician interventional radiologist.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.496
Threshold uncertainty score0.406

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicRadiology practices and educationFrench-language works237,207