Cognitive Difficulty in Physicians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Remediation of some incompetent physicians has proven difficult or impossible. The authors sought to determine whether physicians with impaired competency had neuropsychological impairment sufficient to explain their incompetence and their failure to improve with remedial continuing medical education (CME). METHOD: During a one-year period, 1996-97, all 27 participants in the Physician Review Program (PREP) conducted at McMaster University, a physician competency assessment program, undertook a detailed neuropsychological screening battery. RESULTS: Nearly all physicians assessed as competent also performed well on the neuropsychological testing. However, a significant number (about one third) of the physicians who performed poorly on the competency assessment had neuropsychological impairments sufficient to explain their poor performances. The difficulties were more marked in elderly physicians. CONCLUSION: A significant minority of incompetent physicians have cognitive impairments sufficient to explain both their incompetence and, probably, their failure to improve with remedial CME. Testing physicians for these impairments is important: to detect and treat reversible conditions, to manage irreversible conditions that preclude successful educational intervention, and to facilitate compensation in this instance. Serious consideration should be given to the incorporation of neuropsychological screening in all intensive physician review programs.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".