Use of Radiographic Imaging Protocols by Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College Interns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine if 4th-year interns plan to x-ray their patients, once they are in private practice, in accordance with the principles taught throughout their radiology program and with the evidence-based imaging guidelines outlined in the literature. METHODS: Questionnaires were provided to all 4th-year interns. Each questionnaire consisted of 10 case scenarios representing possible chiropractic patients. Each intern was asked if he or she would radiograph the patient and, if so, which views would be taken. A "gold standard" was established by two chiropractic radiologists using evidence-based guidelines. Intern answers were compared with the gold standard using percent agreement. RESULTS: Sixty-eight interns completed the questionnaire. Agreement between the interns and the gold standards for the question of whether or not they would take x-rays ranged from 63.2% to 100%. The percent agreement for the correct radiographic views chosen ranged from 32.6% to 48.4%. CONCLUSION: Interns are generally aware of and plan to apply the radiographic guidelines for determining whether or not radiographs are indicated, as outlined in the current literature. However, interns are inconsistent in choosing the correct views.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".