Laboratory tests, interpretation, and use of resources: a program to introduce the basics.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PROBLEM ADDRESSED: The overuse of laboratory testing has increased rapidly and is contributing to the financial strain on the health care system in Canada. Moreover, a substantial proportion of ordered tests are unnecessary. In a search of all the Canadian family physician residency programs, none lists laboratory training as mandatory or as an optional elective in its curriculum. OBJECTIVE OF PROGRAM: To introduce family medicine residents to appropriate and efficient use of laboratory tests. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: The program was run as a series of identical 4-hour small group sessions to facilitate discussion and laboratory tours. The curriculum focused on 7 key topics: problems associated with laboratory testing, sources of laboratory errors, definitions of normal and abnormal test results, appropriate use of laboratory requisition forms, laboratory quality assurance methods, laboratory collection processes, and costs of common laboratory tests. Residents were taken to a patient specimen collection site for a tour and introduction, followed by approximately 2 hours of didactic sessions, and ending with a tour of a large tertiary care testing facility. CONCLUSION: The program was very well received by family medicine residents and resulted in a substantial increase in residents' self-assessed knowledge of the 7 topics covered in the curriculum. It is hoped that this program will fill an important gap in residency training and support residents' competency in the "selectivity" domain of training.
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 | 0.013 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".