The Coming Crisis in Continuing Education in Diabetes: Resolvable Issues and Novel Solutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.021 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.025 | 0.023 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".