MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1777158073 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.1150

Knowledge about urology in the general population: alarming results

2013· article· en· W1777158073 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Louis-Olivier Gagnon, Andréanne Simard, Le-Mai Tu

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Malpractice and Liability Issues
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de SherbrookeUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineUrologyFrenchPopulationGynecologyHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: For different reasons, urology appears to be one ofthe least known specialties in medicine. In this study, the mainobjective was to measure the knowledge about urology in thegeneral population.Methods: A questionnaire was completed by 150 respondents.Seventy-five respondents were from Sherbrooke, QC (a Frenchspeakingcity) and 75 were from Burlington, VT (an Englishspeakingcity).Results: Of the 150 respondents, 75% (113) said they knew littleor nothing about urology and 63% (95) did not know that urologyinvolves surgery. Also, when asked to name 3 diseases withinthe field of urology, 59% (89) of the respondents were unable toname at least 1 disease.Conclusion: This study demonstrates the lack of knowledge abouturology in the general population. As urologists, we have to considerthe need to conduct an informational campaign to increasethe awareness of urology and the services urologists provide.Introduction : Pour toutes sortes de raisons, l’urologie semble êtreune des spécialités les moins connues de la médecine. Notre étudeavait pour principal objectif de vérifier les connaissances de lapopulation générale en ce domaine.Méthodologie : Un questionnaire a été rempli par 150 personnes,réparties comme suit : 75 personnes de Sherbrooke, au Québec(ville francophone), et 75, de Burlington, au Vermont (ville anglophone).Résultats : Sur les 150 répondants, 75 % (113) avouaient avoirdes connaissances faibles ou nulles dans le domaine de l’urologieet 63 % (95) ignoraient que la chirurgie peut parfois être uti -lisée comme traitement urologique. En outre, lorsqu’on a demandéaux répondants de nommer 3 maladies traitées par un urologue,59 % (89) des répondants étaient incapables de nommer seulementune maladie.Conclusion : L’étude illustre le manque de connaissances de lapopulation générale dans le domaine de l’urologie. En tant qu’urologues,nous devons reconnaître la nécessité de mener une campagned’information afin de sensibiliser la population au sujet del’urologie et des services que nous offrons.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.150

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.331 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations14
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association JournalSame topicMedical Malpractice and Liability IssuesFrench-language works237,207