MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2237939623 · doi:10.5858/132.11.1710.a

Why Did Osler Not Perform Autopsies at Johns Hopkins?

2008· article· en· W2237939623 on OpenAlexaff
James R. Wright

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHistory of Medical Practice
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutopsyMedicineBLISSBiographyGeneral surgeryFamily medicineGerontologyHistoryPathologyArt history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To the Editor.—Lucey and Hutchins1 investigate whether Sir William Osler, who performed almost 1000 autopsies during his career, performed even a single autopsy while at Johns Hopkins. Their article focuses on a patient with bilateral congenital cystic kidney disease and then quibbles with Bliss's biography as to whether the autopsy was performed by Osler (ie, as the “prosector”) or whether Osler merely assisted William MacCallum, a Hopkins pathologist. Although it is admirable that the authors were able to identify the case in question within the records of the autopsy service at the Johns Hopkins Hospital and build a case for Osler being at the autopsy table as an assistant, the article does not address the more interesting question of why Osler never functioned as an independent autopsy pathologist at Hopkins.Osler was recruited to Hopkins from Philadelphia, where he was a professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and a “visiting physician” at Blockley Hospital, an almshouse for treating indigent patients. It was at Blockley that Osler performed his 162 Philadelphia autopsies, and it is well documented that Osler and his residents played very loosely with institutional autopsy consent regulations, that Osler was constantly in trouble with Blockley administration because of this, and that Osler totally ignored the authority of Blockley's 2 staff autopsy pathologists, E. O. Shakespeare and H. F. Formad. According to Bliss, “Complaints about post-mortem abuses reached the Blockley trustees, both from the public and from the pathologists whom Osler and his acolytes tended to ignore. … Blockley gradually tightened its procedures to rein in Osler and his residents.”2 During Osler's 4 years at Blockley, the autopsy consent procedures were adjusted several times to regulate or prohibit performance of autopsies by “visiting physicians.”34According to Henry Ware Cattell, a pathologist at the University of Pennsylvania and Blockley in the 1890s, the custom at Blockley, even though it was not strictly legal, had been to permit postmortem examinations on “all persons dying in charitable institutions” and that “this custom prevailed … with practically no opposition, until lawsuits, arising out of this custom, caused it to be discontinued.”5 Essentially, Blockley was the Wild West on the North American autopsy frontier, and Osler and his deputies succeeded in stretching the limits even there.In stark contrast, Hopkins was not a charitable institution specializing in indigent patients, and William Henry Welch was not a pathologist who could be ignored. Welch was not only the founding physician at Hopkins; he was responsible for hiring Osler. It seems inconceivable that Welch, at the time of Osler's hiring, was not fully aware of these issues in Philadelphia. Undoubtedly, Welch made it clear that the autopsy room at Hopkins belonged to Welch and that Osler would be a welcome guest, but that he was not going to be doing autopsies on his own and duplicating his Philadelphia behaviors at Hopkins. Osler clearly played by “the rules” while he was in Baltimore, and this fact is reinforced by the article by Lucey and Hutchins.1

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0120.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Pathology & Laboratory MedicineSame topicHistory of Medical PracticeFrench-language works237,207