MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

ACGME Requirements for Geriatrics Medicine Curricula in Medical Specialties: Progress Made and Progress Needed

2005· review· en· W2014312695 on OpenAlexaff
Elizabeth J. Bragg, Gregg Warshaw

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Medicine · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAging and Gerontology Research
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Health Services and Policy Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeriatricsAccreditationCurriculumGraduate medical educationMedicineMedical educationFamily medicineHealth careMEDLINEGerontologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the recent past, most physician visits by older adults were with a primary care physician, with less than 40% of ambulatory visits to other specialists. Since 1991, that trend has reversed. In 2001, 53% of ambulatory visits by patients aged 65 years or older were to nonprimary care specialists. Demographic trends and an expanding geriatrics medicine knowledge base require that every physician develop skills specific to the care of older adults. There are concerns that physicians-in-training are not learning adequate specific geriatrics medicine content to prepare them for the rapidly expanding numbers of older adults who will be seeking medical care. Training standards to prepare residents and fellows for practicing medicine are established by experts in the various medical specialties serving on individual residency review committees (RRCs) of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. In 2002 (with a follow-up in 2003), the Association of Directors of Geriatric Academic Programs' team at the University of Cincinnati School of Medicine's Institute for Health Policy and Health Services Research reviewed all 91 nonpediatric specialties' RRC program requirements to identify the specific curriculum requirements related to geriatrics medicine training. As of 2003, 27 of the 91 RRC-accredited specialties have specific geriatrics training requirements; the other 70% of these specialties did not specifically mention geriatrics training. Even among the specialties with specific geriatrics training requirements, curriculum expectations are modest. The geriatrics-specific descriptions within the program requirements of the 27 specialties are presented in this article. The authors encourage the RRCs for all nonpediatric specialties to update their program requirements to ensure that future physicians graduating from their graduate medical education programs are adequately prepared to care for older adults.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.070
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.119
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.371

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0700.119
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0060.012
Research integrity0.0110.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.023

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 head0.205
GPT teacher head0.546
Teacher spread0.341 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademic MedicineSame topicAging and Gerontology ResearchFrench-language works237,207