Predicting the demand of physician workforce: an international model based on "crowd behaviors"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Appropriateness of physician workforce greatly influences the quality of healthcare. When facing the crisis of physician shortages, the correction of manpower always takes an extended time period, and both the public and health personnel suffer. To calculate an appropriate number of Physician Density (PD) for a specific country, this study was designed to create a PD prediction model, based on health-related data from many countries. METHODS: Twelve factors that could possibly impact physicians' demand were chosen, and data of these factors from 130 countries (by reviewing 195) were extracted. Multiple stepwise-linear regression was used to derive the PD prediction model, and a split-sample cross-validation procedure was performed to evaluate the generalizability of the results. RESULTS: Using data from 130 countries, with the consideration of the correlation between variables, and preventing multi-collinearity, seven out of the 12 predictor variables were selected for entry into the stepwise regression procedure. The final model was: PD = (5.014 - 0.128 × proportion under age 15 years + 0.034 × life expectancy)2, with R2 of 80.4%. Using the prediction equation, 70 countries had PDs with "negative discrepancy", while 58 had PDs with "positive discrepancy". CONCLUSION: This study provided a regression-based PD model to calculate a "norm" number of PD for a specific country. A large PD discrepancy in a country indicates the needs to examine physician's workloads and their well-being, the effectiveness/efficiency of medical care, the promotion of population health and the team resource management.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".