Bibliographic record
Abstract
Growth in the profession of medical physics (and in the number of medical physicists) is stunning. In the United States, accredited graduate and residency educational programs in medical physics cannot keep up with the current demand for medical physicists in hospitals and clinics, creating a concern in some circles that some positions are being filled by physicists with less than adequate training and experience. The demand for medical physicists is fueled in part by the technological explosions in radiation oncology and diagnostic imaging that have occurred over the past couple of decades. It is also due in part to an enhanced sensitivity of healthcare professionals and administrators to the public demand for quality, safety, and accountability in medicine. The growth in medical physics is not unique to the United States; similar patterns are seen in other economically developed countries such as Canada, Australia, and members of the European Union. Growth in medical physics is not confined to these countries, however. It is also present to varying degrees in many countries where medical physicists are increasing in numbers and forming organizations to share experiences and learn from one another. For example, medical physics groups have recently formed or are forming in the United Arab Emirates, Mongolia, Uganda, Vietnam, Egypt, Cameroon, Czech Republic, Bahrain, Ethiopia, Kenya, Libya, and Tunisia, among many others. Assisting these groups in their formative efforts is the International Organization of Medical Physics (IOMP), a federation of medical physicists and medical physics organizations from 76 countries around the world. The number of medical physicists in these countries is estimated to range from in the United States to less than ten in countries such as Panama, Jordan, Nepal, Moldava, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, and Uganda. The IOMP represents over medical physicists worldwide and is dedicated to disseminating scientific and technical information, fostering the education and professional development of medical physicists, and promoting quality healthcare services for patients. The IOMP was formed in 1963, and in 1980 joined with the International Federation of Medical and Biological Engineers (IFMBE) to form the International Union of Physical and Engineering Sciences in Medicine (IUPESM) as an umbrella organization for both organizations. In 1999 the IUPESM became a member of the International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU), and in 2005 the IOMP formed a relationship with the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics (IUPAP) in order to strengthen collaboration of medical physicists with other physicists who have similar interests. The IOMP also has relations with international organizations such as the International Society of Radiology, International Commission on Radiological Protection, International Commission of Radiation Units and Measurements, and the International Atomic Energy Agency. Through these organizations and relationships, every medical physicist has a pathway to engage medical physicists, other physicists, and biomedical engineers in the exploration of common interests and in the sharing of knowledge and experience in teaching, research, clinical service, and professional development. Every medical physicist who is a member of any of the 76 organizations (for example, the American Association of Physicists in Medicine or the Canadian Organization of Medical Physicists) constituting the IOMP is a member of the IOMP and, through that membership, has ties to the IUPESM, ICSU, and IUPAP. The IOMP has a semiannual newsletter, Medical Physics World, in which various programs and activities in medical physics around the world are described. As medical physics has expanded worldwide, so has the number of journals publishing original research in medical physics. Included in these journals (with their country of origin in parentheses) are Physics in Medicine and Biology (United Kingdom), Medical Engineering & Physics (United Kingdom), Journal of Medical Physics (India), Meditsiuskaya Physica (Russia), Biomedical Imaging and Intervention Journal (Malaysia), Australasian Physical and Engineering Sciences in Medicine (Australia), Zeitschrift fur Medizinische Physik (Germany), Physica Medica (Italy), Fisica Medica (Spain), Klinische Fysica (Netherlands), Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics (United States) and, of course, Medical Physics (United States). The Publications Committee of the IOMP (for which I serve as chair) is inviting the editors of these journals to participate in an electronic forum where ideas and challenges related to scientific publishing in medical physics can be shared and discussed. The international character of medical physics is reflected each month in the pages of this journal. More than half of the 800 manuscripts submitted to Medical Physics in 2005 originated in 44 countries outside the United States. Papers originating from outside North America are the most rapidly growing segment of submitted manuscripts, in part because electronic submission and review has greatly eased the submission process for the authors of these papers. But it is also true that research in medical physics is increasing in many countries, and this expansion is yielding more papers submitted to medical physics journals in general. Medical Physics is the official science journal of the AAPM and is an official science journal of the Canadian Organization of Medical Physicists, the Canadian College of Physicists in Medicine, and the IOMP. Several members of the journal's editorial board are from countries other than the United States, and additional international members are desired, especially from Asian countries. Medical physics is truly an international discipline, and Medical Physics is pleased to represent the discipline as an international journal. As a profession, we can be proud of the progress we have made towards these objectives, but we also must remain cognizant of the opportunities presented to us to do even more in the future.
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 | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.011 |
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".