Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate a standardized rheumatology referral form. Methods: Our study population consisted of all family physicians at two family medicine clinics in Montreal (66 physicians in total). We evaluated family physicians' knowledge about RA and behavior in response to a vignette case, before and after the implementation of a standardized rheumatology referral form within the two family medicine clinics. Results: Before the implementation of the rheumatology referral form, only 16 out of the 44 respondents (36.4%, 95% Confidence Interval, CI, 23.8 to 51.1) had a high suspicion of RA, meaning that just over a third of respondents were able to correctly identify a potential RA case. Six months after the form was introduced, 13 out of the 19 respondent (68.4%, 95% CI: 46.0 to 84.6) said they had a high suspicion of RA. This percentage remained constant as long as a year later, when 68.8% of physicians had a high suspicion of RA (11 out of the 16 respondents, 95% CI, and 44.4 to 85.8). Conclusions: Though not definitive, our results seem to suggest that a standardized rheumatology referral form may be a practical and effective way to increase awareness of RA.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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".