Credentialing physicians: Challenges for continuing medical education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Professionals involved in the regulation, credentialing, and certification of physicians around the world met in Chicago in June 2000 to discuss systems to ensure the competence of physicians. We learned that public demand for evidence of continuing competence in practice is driving the profession in most countries to explore new approaches to the education and assessment of physicians. Most groups have called the value of traditional continuing medical education (CME) into question and are exploring the use of self-directed CME methods, self-assessment, and quality improvement as the main instruments for maintenance of certification. It seems likely that teachers will be required to integrate assessment with enhancement of competencies, in much the same way that a coach uses an athlete's performance as a basis for continuous improvement. Recognizing the tough challenges ahead and the demand for CME to adapt to complement future plans for continuous assessment of physician competence, conference participants agreed to create a communication network that would facilitate information sharing and avoid duplication of research efforts.
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 | 0.116 | 0.167 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.026 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.004 |
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".