Time trends in personnel certification and turnover in the Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this analysis was to examine and quantify the coordinating center workload in regard to certification and turnover of clinical personnel who participated in the Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study (COMS). METHODS: The COMS was a set of multicenter, multidisciplinary randomized clinical trials conducted to evaluate radiotherapy for initial treatment of choroidal melanoma, a primary eye cancer. Patients were screened, enrolled, treated, and followed for mortality and clinical outcomes at 43 clinical centers in the United States and Canada, beginning late in 1986. Clinical centers were added to the COMS during three calendar periods. Training and certification of clinical personnel was performed by five resource centers and coordinated at the COMS coordinating center. A personnel database was maintained at the coordinating center for tracking certification progress, recertification, transfers and resignations. Certification records were analyzed for the period 1986 through 1998 when patient accrual and treatment were completed. RESULTS: Clinical personnel (929 individuals) were certified for one or more of nine distinct roles in the COMS, resulting in 1,342 certifications; 26% were certified for two or more positions. The total number certified for each role ranged from 114 to 208. Certifications per year ranged from 260 in 1987 to 35 in 1997. The certification workload at the coordinating center rose following addition of each group of new clinical centers. It also increased in 1995 as a result of recertification of current personnel mandated by the external data monitoring committee. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis documented that training and certification were continuing tasks, and not limited to initiation of the study. Resignations and reassignments of certified personnel were responsible for 642 decertifications.
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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".