Developing priority criteria for magnetic resonance imaging: results from the Western Canada Waiting List Project.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Western Canada Waiting List (WCWL) Project is a federally funded partnership of 19 organizations, including medical associations, health authorities, ministries of health and research organizations, that was created to develop tools to assist in assessing the relative urgency and priority of patients on waiting lists. The WCWL panel on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was 1 of 5 panels constituted under this project. METHODS: The panel developed and tested a set of standardized clinical criteria for setting priorities among patients awaiting MRI. The criteria were applied to 407 patients in the 4 western provinces. Regression analysis was used to determine the set of criteria weights that collectively best predicted clinicians' overall ratings of patients' urgency for MRI. Reliability was assessed using clinicians' ratings of 6 hypothetical paper cases. RESULTS: The resulting weighted criteria accounted for about two-fifths of the observed variance in overall urgency ratings (R2 = 39.9%). The panel then modified the criteria on the basis of regression results and clinical judgment. Most of the revised criteria items showed poor inter-rater reliability, but test-retest reliability (over a 2-month interval) was relatively good. CONCLUSION: Criteria items requiring probability judgments were a challenge for clinicians. Further development and testing of the tool appears warranted, although considerable question remains concerning the utility of priority criteria for MRI and other diagnostic services.
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 | 0.013 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".