MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2410735849

Emergency radiology in Canada: a national survey.

2002· article· en· W2410735849 on OpenAlexaffabout
William C. Torreggiani, Savvas Nicolaou, Iain Lyburn, Alison Harris, Anne R. Buckley

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiology practices and education
Canadian institutionsVancouver General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTeleradiologyRadiologyMedical emergencyUltrasonographyEmergency medicineHealth careTelemedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To document the existing radiology services available to emergency physicians in hospitals across Canada and to preview future trends and needs. METHODS: Questionnaires (n = 130) regarding the type, availability and satisfaction with radiology services were distributed to radiologists and emergency physicians at 65 hospitals across Canada. RESULTS: Fifty-three (41%) questionnaires were returned, and 45 (35%) completed questionnaires from 35 hospitals were used for analysis (24 from radiologists and 21 from emergency physicians). Plain radiographs were available in all hospitals at all times. Ultrasonography, intravenous pyleograms and computed tomography (CT) were available in all departments during normal working hours; after hours, CT was unavailable in 1 hospital and ultrasonography was unavailable in 2. Focused assessment with sonography for trauma (FAST) was routinely performed for blunt abdominal trauma in 6 centres, and 10 centres had teleradiology services. Regarding the quality of emergency service, 7 of 45 responded "poor," 4 "average," 14 "good," and 17 of 45 rated service "excellent." Interestingly, most radiologists answered "good" or "excellent," and most of the "poor" responses came from emergency physicians. Regarding staff coverage after 5 pm, 34 hospitals provided CT services, 20 had ultrasonography staff available, and there was radiology nursing coverage in 14 hospitals. Clinical details on requisitions were generally rated "adequate" or "poor." Although most radiograph reports were available within 48 hours, some took longer. Hot-seat reporting was available in 11 centres. During normal working hours, radiologists were the first to read films in 5 of 35 hospitals. After hours, emergency physicians were the first to read films in all hospitals, but only 14 hospitals indicated they were "formally" trained to do so. CONCLUSION: This survey documents the strengths and weaknesses of the radiology services available to emergency physicians. The perceptions of emergency physicians and radiologists of the adequacy those services differ significantly.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score0.103

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations12
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicRadiology practices and educationFrench-language works237,207