Stirrups or no stirrups for routine speculum examinations?: … but we do not need to do a trial of smear quality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Editor-The report from the chief medical officer for England has implications for all UK doctors and needs to be considered very carefully. 1Its aim is a system of medical regulation that puts patients' safety first through the early detection, and where possible, remediation, of poor performance.If the report contributes to that aim, and commands public and professional support, it should be welcomed by everyone involved in health care.The Merrison report was the collective effort of Sir William Merrison and the other 14 members of his committee of inquiry, who took both oral and written evidence. 2A different process has been followed in this case.The government, sensibly, has therefore decided on a period of consultation during which the recommendations can be properly debated, tested, and costed.We have already said that we believe that the recommendations to divorce oversight of medical education from the other regulatory functions of standards, registration, and fitness to practise are not in patients' best interests.We will now be consulting widely with our partners before we submit our considered response.It may be another 30 years before there is another opportunity such as this.We must seize it so that future generations of patients can say that we did not fail them.
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 | 0.004 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.033 | 0.034 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.005 |
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".