Electronic decision support for diagnostic imaging in a primary care setting
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
METHODS: Clinical guideline adherence for diagnostic imaging (DI) and acceptance of electronic decision support in a rural community family practice clinic was assessed over 36 weeks. Physicians wrote 904 DI orders, 58% of which were addressed by the Canadian Association of Radiologists guidelines. RESULTS: Of those orders with guidelines, 76% were ordered correctly; 24% were inappropriate or unnecessary resulting in a prompt from clinical decision support. Physicians followed suggestions from decision support to improve their DI order on 25% of the initially inappropriate orders. The use of decision support was not mandatory, and there were significant variations in use rate. Initially, 40% reported decision support disruptive in their work flow, which dropped to 16% as physicians gained experience with the software. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians supported the concept of clinical decision support but were reluctant to change clinical habits to incorporate decision support into routine work flow.
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.
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 | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it