MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W137551076

Book Reviews: The family practice desk reference, 4th ed.

2003· article· en· W137551076 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Kuljit Sajjan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Coding and Health Information
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeskComputer scienceTable (database)General practiceTable of contentsTask (project management)MedicineWorld Wide WebFamily medicineDatabaseManagement
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Charles E. Driscoll and Edward T. Bope Chicago: American Medical Association; 2003. 1035 pp US$49.95 (paper) ISBN 1-57947-190-0 Rating: *** Audience: Family practice residents, family physicians Content: Family practice is a discipline that truly spans the spectrum of medicine. This fact makes it a challenging task to compress into one complete and concise guide the breadth of information that family practitioners need. This book makes a valiant effort to do just that. It is intended to be a print version of the quick and snappy family practice desk references available for handheld computers. It hopes to guide the family practitioner or resident through “the necessary nuggets of information about the most common conditions encountered by family physicians.” Organized by life-cycle and body system, each chapter consists of only tables, figures and references. Strengths: The full breadth of family practice is covered, including topics on emergency and surgical care. It has a good layout, useful algorithms and easy-to-find information in tables. It cuts to the chase, avoiding the exhaustive detail that surrounds a diagnostic workup. Let's face it: Who has time to read such detail in a busy family practice? Each table contains as much practical information as possible, for example by including pediatric dosages and options for drugs in pregnancy. Time that would be spent searching for another table is thus saved. Limitations: Lab values are not in SI units, which is the standard most Canadian labs and clinicians use. This makes values difficult to interpret, and the extra effort required to find conversions defeats the purpose of a quick desk reference. Also, detail is lost in images, which appear in black and white. The chapter on “Practice Management and Enhancement” is not entirely relevant to Canadian practice. Overall, this is a good, practical book that merits its price, but a Canadian version would have been ideal. Kuljit Sajjan Family Physician Vancouver, BC This book is available through your local book retailer, or through the publisher at www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/article/8183-6716.html

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.655
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.004

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 head0.143
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.291 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicMedical Coding and Health InformationFrench-language works237,207