The Characteristics of International Medical Graduates Who Have Been Disciplined by Professional Regulatory Colleges in Canada: A Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study evaluated the proportion and characteristics of international medical graduates (IMGs) who have been disciplined by professional regulatory colleges in Canada in comparison with disciplined North American medical graduates (NAMGs). METHOD: The authors compiled a database of the nature of professional misconduct and penalties incurred by disciplined physicians from January 2000 to May 2015 using public records. They compared discipline data for IMGs versus those for NAMGs, and calculated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for select outcomes. RESULTS: There were 794 physicians disciplined; 922 disciplinary cases during the 15-year study period. IMGs composed an average of 23.4% (standard deviation = 1.1%) of the total physician population and represented one-third of disciplined physicians and discipline cases. The overall disciplinary rate for all Canadian physicians was 8.52 cases per 10,000 physician years (95% CI [7.77, 9.31]). This rate per group was higher for IMGs than for NAMGs (12.91 [95% CI (11.50, 14.43)] vs. 8.16 [95% CI (7.53, 8.82)] cases per 10,000 physician years, P < .01, and RR 1.58 (95% CI [1.38, 1.82]). IMGs were disciplined at significantly higher rates than NAMGs if they were trained in South Africa (RR 1.73 [95% CI (1.14, 2.51), P < .01), Egypt (RR 3.59 [95% CI (2.18, 5.52)], P < .01), or India (RR 1.66 [95% CI (1.01, 2.55)], P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: IMGs are disciplined at a higher rate than NAMGs. Future initiatives should be focused to delineate the exact cause of this observation.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".