The first decade of the American Board of Internal Medicine certification in critical care medicine: An overview of examinees and certificate holders from 1987 through 1996
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OVERVIEW: This study reviews the first decade of critical care medicine (CCM) certification by the American Board of Internal Medicine (1987-1996). Included are the characteristics of examinee and certificate-holder groups; examination performances from different underlying disciplines of internal medicine, with or without formal CCM training; and the influence of background and a training program as correlates of examination performance. DATA SOURCES: The CCM certification examination has been offered biennially since November 1987. Performance data on the American Board of Internal Medicine examinations in internal medicine and its subspecialties and added qualifications were available for candidates taking the CCM examinations. For examinees with formal CCM training, residency program director ratings, and information regarding the program characteristics of size and percentage of United States and Canadian medical graduates were also available. STUDY SELECTION: All examinees who ever attempted certification were included in this study. The study cohort for each of the five examination administrations consists of all first-time takers. CONCLUSIONS: Cohort sizes have decreased since formal training became an admission requirement in 1993. Percentages of International Medical Graduates and women attempting and achieving certification have increased steadily. Examination performance was positively associated with formal training, internal medicine examination performance, recent medical training, and pulmonary disease certification. For those with formal training, performance was also positively associated with training program director ratings of overall clinical competence and completion of a training program with a higher proportion of United States and Canadian medical graduates.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".