Do regulated resident working hours affect medical graduate education? Trends in the American psychiatry board pass rates pre- and post-2003 duty hours regulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims and method To assess trends of the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology examination pass rates before and after the 2003 duty hours regulations (DHR). We obtained the pass rates for part I and II for years 2000-2010. Data were divided pre-DHR (2000-2003) and post-DHR (2007-2010). Results During the pre-DHR period, first- and multiple-attempt group pass rates were 80.7% and 39.0% which changed in the post-DHR period to 89.7% and 39.1% respectively. Similarly for the part II exam, the pre-DHR first- and multiple-attempt group pass rates were 60.2% and 43.5% respectively, which increased to 78.7% and 53.8%, among the post-DHR group. Overall, there was a significant increase in the first-attempt candidates pass rates for parts I and II, whereas multiple-attempt candidates did not benefit as strongly. Clinical implications The results suggest that the 2003 DHR may have had a positive impact on examination-based medical knowledge in psychiatry.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".