The current status of interventional radiology in Canada: results of a survey by the Canadian Interventional Radiology Association.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the current status of interventional radiology in Canada. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to 28 Canadian interventional radiologists (defined as a physician who performs any type of interventional procedure, including biopsies, but excluding interventional neuroradiology) practising in both tertiary and community hospitals in the major centres in all provinces except Prince Edward Island. RESULTS: Twenty-two (79%) of 28 surveys were completed and returned, providing data about 86 interventional radiologists (IRs). IRs were performing almost all of the following procedures at their institutions: inferior vena cava filter placement, venous angioplasty, dialysis fistula angioplasty, diagnostic and therapeutic pulmonary and bronchial artery procedures, diagnostic and therapeutic procedures of the lower extremity and renal arteries, percutaneous abscess and biliary drainage procedures, percutaneous nephrostomy, and fibroid embolization. A second group of procedures, performed by both IRs and non-radiologists in most institutions, included: all types of central venous catheter placements, pleural drainage, and gastrostomy tube placement. Procedures not being performed by anyone in a number of institutions included: dialysis graft thrombolysis, varicocele embolization, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts, palliative stenting of the gastrointestinal tract, fallopian tube recannalization, and liver and prostate tumour treatments. The factors most often limiting the respondents' ability to provide a comprehensive interventional service were the interventional radiology inventory budget and the availability of interventional radiology rooms; 50% of respondents indicated the number of available nurses, technologists and IRs was also an important limiting factor. CONCLUSION: IRs in Canada still play a major role in many of the most commonly performed procedures. However, limited availability of resources and personnel in many institutions may be hampering the ability of IRs to develop new procedures.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".