MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1940224074 · doi:10.5858/2002-126-0405-specp

Surgical Pathology Extradepartmental Consultation Practices

2002· article· en· W1940224074 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Muhammad Azam, Raouf E. Nakhleh

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTurnaround timeMedicinePatient satisfactionFamily medicineSurgeryGeneral surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To document the practice parameters and case characteristics associated with personal (expert) consultations. We also examine the value, level of participant (customer) satisfaction, turnaround time, and rate of personal consultations. DESIGN: We asked participants in the College of American Pathologists' Q-Probes program to document cases sent for consultation during 4 months or up to 20 cases. They documented patient and specimen characteristics, the turnaround times, and the participants' levels of satisfaction with the consultation experience. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred eighty laboratories/surgical pathology practices. One hundred seventy-two (95.6%) were from the United States; the remainder were located in Canada and Australia. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rate and turnaround time of consultations and participant level of satisfaction. RESULTS: A total of 2746 consultation cases were examined for an aggregate consultation rate of 0.5% (median, 0.7%). Institutions with a higher occupied bed size and a greater number of surgical pathology cases both had lower consultation rates (P < or =.05). The median turnaround time (defined as the interval from the date on which the case was sent to the date on which the diagnosis was received) was 6 days. Twenty-nine percent and 68% of cases had a turnaround time within 3 and 7 days, respectively. Fifty-two percent of cases were sent to nationally known experts, and 32% were sent to local experts. Skin (18.0%), hematolymphoid (11.6%), and breast (9.6%) specimens were most commonly sent for consultation. In 70.5% of cases, the consultant confirmed the referring pathologist's original diagnosis, but in 15.9% of cases, the consultant also added significant information. Satisfaction rates were higher with faster turnaround times and verbal reporting. Satisfaction rates were lower for cases in which the patient or the clinician requested the consultation and in which the consultant's diagnosis was ambiguous. CONCLUSIONS: This study establishes a multi-institutional consultation rate of 0.5%, defines the nature of surgical pathology consultations, and demonstrates that satisfaction with consultations is associated with a faster turnaround time and receipt of additional, clinically meaningful information.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.002

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.313 · 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

Citations32
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Pathology & Laboratory MedicineSame topicClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlFrench-language works237,207