Assessment of Family Physicians' Performance Using Patient Charts
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
Peer-assessment processes with chart review have been used for many years to assess the clinical performance of physicians. The Quebec medical licensing authority has been required by provincial law to assess the practicing Quebec physicians on a nonvoluntary basis. During the period from January 2001 to November 2004, 25 family physicians in active practice were randomly selected from a pool of about 300. For each physician, 25 to 40 patients' medical charts were randomly selected to evaluate the interrater reliability of peer-review assessment of medical charts and to compare ratings based on chart review with a chart-stimulated recall interview to those based on chart review alone. The concordance between chart review alone and that of chart review with chart-stimulated recall interview was 75% for chart keeping, 69% for clinical investigation, 81% for diagnostic accuracy, and 74% for treatment plan. Ratings based on chart review alone achieve moderate levels of reliability (Kappa = 0.44 to 0.56). It appears that some important information about quality of care is missed when only chart review is used.
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 | 0.023 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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