Variations in Magnetic Resonance Imaging Provision and Processes among Canadian Academic Centres
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Increasing demand has led to questions regarding the appropriateness of advanced imaging exams, particularly for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The study aimed to explore variability in MRI service provision and request variation within Canadian academic medical imaging departments, particularly factors potentially affecting appropriate MRI service provision. METHODS: All Canadian academic centres with medical imaging residency programs were invited to participate. Participation involved completing an institution-level survey and submitting exam requests for all MRI exams completed in a common 24-hour period. The surveys and request forms were analysed and contrasted. RESULTS: The 13 participating institutions reported scanner operating hours per week ranging from 101-672; large urban centres typically had higher hours. A total of 42% of sites housed multiple scanners, and 28% housed a 3-T scanner. Most accept requests from all general practitioners and specialists. Only 1 institution has a solely electronic request submission process. Requisitions are focused on patient safety, including contrast considerations, metallic foreign bodies, and implants. Request prioritization scales vary substantially across institutions. Few use referral guidelines to evaluate request appropriateness. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis showed great variation among facility-level factors such as hours of operation, request forms, and prioritization scales among institutions and facilities. Opportunities exist to create standardized processes and improve request forms to focus more on specific information required for appropriateness, increase consistency in patient care, and promote demand balancing, minimizing unnecessary exams and therefore reducing wait times.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".