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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.569
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.006
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

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