MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2404504438

Evidence Brief: Role of the Annual Comprehensive Physical Examination in the Asymptomatic Adult

2011· article· en· W2404504438 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEurope PMC (PubMed Central) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealth Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMedical historyPhysical examinationFamily medicineUnited States Medical Licensing ExaminationMEDLINEMedical educationMedical schoolSurgery
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The routine annual comprehensive physical examination (PE) became a fixture in American medical practice in the 1940's. By the 1980's many influential professional groups, including the American Medical Association, the American College of Physicians, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) and the Canadian Task Force on Periodic Health, recommended that this approach be replaced by periodic screening, counseling and PE tailored to a patient's age, sex, risk factors, and symptoms as elicited by the medical history and review of systems (Oboler 2002). Furthermore, these recommendations tacitly or explicitly endorse the concept that, for screening purposes, only those components of the PE that accurately and effectively detect conditions for which early diagnosis is known to lead to improved patient outcomes should be routinely offered.Consistent with this tailored and evidence-based approach, Medicare currently offers a free initial “Welcome to Medicare” visit which includes a medical history, recommended immunizations and screenings and “further tests depending on your health and medical history”. The only components of the PE recommended for everyone are measurement of blood pressure, vision, weight and height ( www.medicare.gov/welcometomedicare/visit.html ).Nevertheless, most adults in the US believe that annual comprehensive physical exams are important; a 2002 study showed that more than 90% endorse the value of routine examination of the heart, lungs, abdomen, reflexes and prostate (Oboler 2002). Moreover, as recently as 2005, many physicians also endorse the complete annual physical examination for a variety of reasons including perceived benefits to the physician-patient relationship, patient expectations for a yearly “physical,” fear of malpractice litigation, and compensation (Frame 1995, Prochazka 2005). The purpose of this review is to determine whether the routine annual physical examination results in improved outcomes for asymptomatic adults.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.901
Threshold uncertainty score0.256

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.230 · 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