Opinions Differ by Expertise in <i>Mycobacterium avium</i> Complex Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Pulmonary Mycobacterium avium complex treatment guidelines rely largely on expert opinion. The extent to which nonexperts agree with recommendations of experts in this clinical area is unknown. OBJECTIVES: We sought to compare practices and perceptions of prognosis between experts and nonexperts. METHODS: We surveyed respirologists (Ontario, Canada, "nonexperts") and experts from nontuberculous mycobacterial disease centers of excellence (Canada and United States). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Forty-six Ontario respirologists (29% of 160) and 19 experts (73% of 26) participated. There was agreement between nonexperts and experts regarding disease duration before diagnosis (2 yr), likelihood of spontaneous remission (7-15%), typical duration of treatment (18 mo), first choice of therapy (guideline regimens), a subgroup of patients for whom less-intensive regimens are favored (10% after recurrence), likelihood of recurrence (30%), and median survival (10 yr in most patients). Noted differences were that nonexperts estimated fewer patients with a positive culture had disease (30% vs. 50%, P = 0.02), used intensive guidelines therapy less often in new cases (50% vs. 79%, P = 0.02), and perceived a slightly lower success rate with guidelines therapy (65% vs. 75%, P = 0.047). Response ranges were wider for nonexperts, significantly so for selection of intensive guidelines therapy in new (P = 0.01) and recurrent (P = 0.04) cases. CONCLUSION: Experts and nonexperts agreed on many issues. However, nonexperts perceived lower rates of disease among patients with isolates, tended to use less aggressive treatment approaches, and perceived lower success rates. Significant variability was observed in responses-often wider among nonexperts. Although these results are likely biased by referral, they may identify important areas for targeted education.
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 | 0.010 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".