Chest X-ray ordering related to varied clinical scenarios: a survey of Saskatchewan physicians.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The chest X-ray (CXR) is one of the most commonly requested diagnostic imaging examinations. It is estimated that over 250,000 CXRs are ordered in Saskatchewan annually. Judicious use of the CXR is valuable in patient care, while unnecessary use increases costs, adds to patient irradiation, and may be in conflict with standards of patient care. In 1993, the Saskatchewan Health Services Utilization and Research Commission (HSURC) developed clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the CXR. These guidelines were based on a metaanalysis of validated literature. We were uncertain about whether Saskatchewan physicians were ordering CXRs based on the HSURC CXR CPGs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey, based on recommendations from the HSURC CXR CPGs, was developed and distributed to 363 physicians in Saskatchewan by mail (30/363) and by email (333/363). The survey asked physicians if they would order, or not order, a CXR for 5 basic clinical scenarios. The question of whether to order a CXR was then repeated when the basic scenario was altered one variable at a time, to determine if the physicians would change their CXR orders. RESULTS: According to our assessment of physician responses to the initial clinical scenarios, the surveyed physicians correctly followed the HSURC CXR CPGs in the following frequencies: 100% scenario 1, 91.9% scenario 2, 35.4% scenario 3, 100% scenario 4, and 61.2% scenario 5. Alteration of the basic clinical scenarios resulted in very unpredictable ordering of CXRs by the survey participants. CONCLUSION: The Saskatchewan physicians we surveyed are not ordering CXRs on the basis of HSURC CXR CPGs. They order too many nonindicated CXRs. Further communication with, and education of, the physician population about the HSRUC CXR CPGs may be warranted.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".