The Practice of Pathology in Canada: Decreasing Pathologist Supply and Uncertain Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Pathology organizations in the United States are preparing for a new era of health care reform. Trends in the supply of pathologists in Canada's managed care system may provide some useful insights in any analysis and projection of future pathologist needs in the United States. OBJECTIVE: In this study, population-based Canadian databases were used to devise a parameter for physician supply, cancer cases per physician. The trend in this supply parameter for pathologists was compared to that for radiation oncologists. DESIGN: The number of Canadian pathologists and radiation oncologists and the annual number of new cancer cases in each of 2 years, 1999 and 2009, were extracted from reliable databases. Cancer cases per pathologist and oncologist were calculated, and relative trends in supply of physicians in both specialties were identified. RESULTS: The annual number of new cancer cases increased from 129,300 to 171,000 from 1999 to 2009. The absolute numbers of both pathologists and oncologists also increased in this time period. However, while the increase in the number of radiation oncologists led to an 8.2% decrease in cancer cases per radiation oncologist, the modest increase in the number of pathologists led to an increase of 17.1% in cancer cases per pathologist. CONCLUSIONS: There is a trend toward a decreasing supply of Canadian pathologists relative to that of cancer demands. This finding confirms an earlier population-based study showing a decreased supply relative to population and number of clinical physicians. It is uncertain whether this decreased supply is a result of appropriate application of new, efficient methods or whether health care has been rationed or adversely impacted. Outcome measures to monitor Canadian pathology practice quality are clearly needed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".