A Study of Thrombophilia Testing and Counseling Practices of Family Physicians Using the Script Concordance Method in Calgary, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Thrombophilia testing helps to identify populations at risk of venous thromboembolism, but motivations for testing individuals are frequently unclear. OBJECTIVES: Our goals were to assess the motivations for thrombophilia testing among family physicians (FPs) to determine whether testing was congruent with expert opinion, and to study counseling practices. METHODS: The FPs and experts completed a survey involving hypothetical thrombophilia patients. Responses between groups were compared using the script concordance method. RESULTS: The FPs referred 35.9% of cases. Of the five scenarios, two resulted in disagreement regarding appropriateness of testing (P ≤ .037). The FPs were more likely to test male, obese, or pediatric patients, patients with a family history of myocardial infarction or infertility, and patients with a recent event (P ≤ .043). The FPs were more likely to counsel patients after testing (P ≤ .016). CONCLUSION: Disagreement exists between physician groups about the utility of thrombophilia testing. Self-reported lack of pretest counseling among FPs warrants further study.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".