MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Medical practitioners' knowledge of Latin

2002· article· en· W1996287215 on OpenAlex
Nigel E Drury, Edward Powell-Smith, Joe McKeever

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Education · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical and Biological Sciences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerminologyMedical prescriptionLatin AmericansQuarter (Canadian coin)Medical educationMedicineMeaning (existential)Subject (documents)Medical terminologyFamily medicineOfficerAlternative medicinePsychologyPediatricsNursingPolitical scienceLawLibrary scienceHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Latin terminology and abbreviations are used throughout medicine, particularly in patient notes and prescriptions. Such legal documents are an important form of communication between professionals, requiring detail and accuracy. However, doctors' understanding of Latin is poor: a community survey found pharmacists to be considerably better informed than general practitioners, particularly trainees.1 To determine the current knowledge of basic practical Latin, we conducted a survey of medical students and hospital doctors of all grades. Participants were required to give both the Latin words and English translations corresponding to 10 abbreviations in common use (Table 1). Of 120 questionnaires, 77 (64%) were returned; the response rate was particularly poor from consultants. The number of correct answers was disappointing, with only one doctor – a senior house officer – scoring more than two out of 10. No house officers (19) or medical students (33) gave any correct answers. Our results suggest an alarming situation in which doctors, whilst having insight into meaning, are not sure of exactly what they are writing on a daily basis. There are no indications that this might improve in the near future. The medical literature contains numerous examples in which misinterpretation of Latin abbreviations has resulted in prescribing errors.2 This raises serious medico-legal concerns – drug errors are the most common cause of medical mistakes, accounting for a quarter of successful negligence claims.3 The teaching of Latin in schools has declined by 75% over the past 30 years, with less than 10 000 pupils taking the subject at GCSE level in 2001.4 At the same time, access to medical education is being broadened to reflect the social, cultural and ethnic diversities of our population, encouraging those without a classical education to take up the challenge of a medical career.5 Whilst this is to be applauded, it has resulted in a cohort of professionals who continue to use abbreviations that they cannot translate. Herein lies a simple choice: either abandon such terminology in favour of English, or provide a limited education in medically relevant Latin at undergraduate level.1,2 As Latin is not only the basis of most European languages but also has widespread use across the world, we suggest that educating the next generation of doctors to understand what they are writing should be encouraged.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.726
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0570.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.315 · 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