A systematic review: The role and impact of the physician assistant in the emergency department
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic review describes the role and impact of physician assistants (PAs) in the ED. It includes reports of surveys, retrospective and prospective studies as well as guidelines and reviews. Seven hundred and twelve studies were identified of which only 66 were included, and many of these studies were limited by methodological quality. Generally the use of PAs in the ED is modest with 13-18% of US EDs having PAs although academic medical centres report PA use in 65-68% of EDs. The evidence indicates that PAs are reliable in assessing certain medical complaints and performing procedures, and are well accepted by ED staff and patients alike. There is limited evidence as to whether PAs improve ED flow or are cost-effective. Future studies on work processes, cost-effectiveness, unfamiliar patients' willingness to be treated by non-physician providers, and ED physicians' acceptability of PAs are needed to inform and guide the integration of PAs into EDs.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it