MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971323229 · doi:10.1089/jpm.2000.3.4.441

Physician Board Certification in Hospice and Palliative Medicine

2000· article· en· W1971323229 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Charles F. von Gunten, Paul A. Sloan, Russell K. Portenoy, Ronald S. Schonwetter

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Palliative Medicine · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDivision of Graduate Education
KeywordsAccreditationMedicineCertificationSpecialtyFamily medicinePalliative careBoard certificationNursingProfessional associationContinuing medical educationMedical educationContinuing educationManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The American Board of Hospice and Palliative Medicine (ABHPM) was formed in 1995 to establish and implement standards for certification of physicians practicing hospice and palliative medicine and, ultimately, accreditation of physician training in this discipline. The ABHPM has created a certification process that parallels other member boards of the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS). After 3(1/2) years and the administration of seven examinations, 623 physicians have achieved board certification in hospice and palliative medicine. Those with ABMS primary board certifications have been certified by anesthesiology, 4%; family practice, 23%; internal medicine, 55%; pediatrics, 1%; radiation oncology, 2%; and surgery, 2%. The majority describe their practice location as urban. Sixty-nine percent report more than 5 years of clinical experience in hospice/palliative medicine and 75% report an association with a hospice as medical director or hospice physician. Sixty-seven percent belong to the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Applicants were drawn from 48 states, Canada, and 3 foreign countries. The available data indicate only 20% were less than 40 years of age and that two-thirds were men. There is significant physician interest in seeking professional recognition of expertise in caring for terminally ill persons and their families through creation of a specialty in hospice and palliative medicine. Certification of physicians and accreditation of training programs are key elements in this process. This process will encourage more physicians to enter this field and provide needed expertise in the management of patients with progressive disease for whom the prognosis is limited, and the focus of care is quality of life.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.006

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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations33
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Palliative MedicineSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207