MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061645721 · doi:10.1309/ajcpoyhb4r4vhabi

Which Laboratory Tests Do Students in an Internal Medicine Clerkship Need to Learn About?

2008· article· en· W2061645721 on OpenAlexafffund
William E. Schreiber, James R. Busser, Suzanna Huebsch

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Clinical Pathology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsCreatine kinaseMedicineTest (biology)CreatinineLactate dehydrogenaseAlkaline phosphataseAlbuminInternal medicineLiver function testsChemistryBiochemistryEnzymeBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A PDA (personal digital assistant) program containing information on 193 laboratory tests was provided to students during the 8-week core clerkship in internal medicine. Students used the program at their own discretion. The number of times each test was accessed during the clerkship was recorded by the program's database. Ten tests were accessed by more than 40% of the students: serum enzymes (lactate dehydrogenase, amylase, alkaline phosphatase, creatine kinase, and gamma-glutamyl transferase), electrolytes (sodium and potassium), renal function tests (urea and creatinine), and a plasma protein (albumin). The most frequently looked up test category was the CBC, followed by liver-related tests, plasma proteins, electrolytes, and autoantibodies. Students at the 2 hospitals where the clerkship was offered had similar test lookup patterns. We conclude that students seek information about laboratory tests that are frequently ordered and directly relevant to the diagnosis and management of their patients.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.399 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Clinical PathologySame topicClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlFrench-language works237,207