Quality assurance governance and implementation in cancer pathology: A national survey of Canada.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
73 Background: Robust quality assurance (QA) programs incorporating both technical and interpretive aspects of QA are integral to accurate pathology diagnosis and quality of care a cancer patient receives. Programs and governance addressing technical pathology quality have been well developed in Canada and internationally. The extent of interpretive pathology QA implementation across Canada remains unknown. The objective of this study was to document the current landscape for pathology QA in Canada. Methods: An environmental scan was conducted to determine the types and extent of current large institution and provincial-level pathology QA programs in place across Canada. An electronic survey was administered to key stakeholders and senior decision makers in cancer pathology. Targeted interviews were conducted with pathology leaders in each province to verify survey results, deliberate and resolve ambiguous responses. Results were presented to all survey respondents as a feedback mechanism. Results: 9/10 provinces currently have a professional group representing pathologists. 10/10 provinces currently have a technical QA program. Of these, 2/10 provinces are governed through Accreditation Canada, 3/10 provinces are governed through the Ontario Laboratory Accreditation Program and the remaining 5/10 provinces are governed by separate provincially-led programs. For interpretive pathology QA, 2/10 provinces have a coordinated provincial interpretive QA program, 5/10 provinces do not have provincial coordination, and have plans to implement one, and 3/10 provinces do not have a provincially coordinated interpretive QA program in place, nor are they planning to develop one. Conclusions: This is the first study to document the provincial landscape for pathology QA in Canada. Large pan-Canadian variations remain for level of integration and future plans to develop and integrate interpretive pathology QA programs within provinces. Next steps should include the development of a pan-Canadian recommendations framework for interpretive pathology QA to help guide senior decision-makers in implementing such quality programs provincially.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".