MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093194038 · doi:10.2337/diaclin.23.1.6

The Coming Crisis in Continuing Education in Diabetes: Resolvable Issues and Novel Solutions

2005· article· en· W2093194038 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Steven B. Leichter

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Diabetes · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineContinuing educationMedical education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I n a previous article,1 a broad theoretical concept was presented that suggested that physician participation in continuing medical education (CME) programs was diminishing and would continue to diminish. The reasons suggested for this were: 1. Growing dependence on pharmaceutical companies for financial support of CME programs 2. Increasing pressure for regulatory oversight of educational programs sponsored by pharmaceutical companies 3. Increasing and negative imposition of “ethical standards” for physician behavior by pharmaceutical companies in CME interactions 4. Despite regulatory oversight, growing pharmaceutical company control of the development and marketing of physician “experts” for CME, whether promotional or accredited 5. With increased regulatory oversight, a decline in the degree of creativity and level of sophistication of such programs, converting many CME or promotional programs into “infomercials.” According to unofficial but authoritative sources in various pharmaceutical companies, these influences have resulted in a substantial decline in physician participation in CME programs. Despite these trends, there is no evidence that the current directions will be altered in the near future. Altering these characteristics would be very desirable in diabetes care. Multiple studies have confirmed that the prevalent level of care for diabetic patients is demonstrably deviant from recommended guidelines and procedures.2-7 This has been documented in various care settings, including primary care, family practice, and large urban managed care organizations. Despite vigorous efforts on the part of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and other organizations to remedy these deviations, there is no compelling evidence that such efforts have substantially improved these gaps in care. A study on the impact of the Canadian Diabetes Association's clinical practice guidelines for postpartum screening of pregnant women with gestational diabetes for type 2 diabetes demonstrated that the guidelines had no significant effect.8 The failure of such educational efforts in diabetes reflects a widespread failure of CME …

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.174
Threshold uncertainty score0.436

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.090
GPT teacher head0.489
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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical DiabetesSame topicPrimary Care and Health OutcomesFrench-language works237,207