Impact of the Publication of Appropriate Use Criteria on Utilization Rates of Myocardial Perfusion Imaging Studies in Ontario, Canada: A Population‐Based Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Concern regarding overutilization of cardiac imaging has led to the development of appropriate use criteria ( AUC ). Myocardial perfusion imaging ( MPI ) is one of the most commonly used cardiac imaging modalities worldwide. Despite multiple iterations of AUC, there is currently no evidence regarding their real‐world impact on population‐based utilization rates of MPI . Our goal was to assess the impact of the AUC on rates of MPI in Ontario, Canada. We hypothesized that publication of the AUC would be associated with a significant reduction in MPI rates. Methods and Results We conducted a retrospective cohort study of the adult population of Ontario from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2015. Age‐ and sex‐standardized rates were compared from 4 different periods intersected by 3 published iterations of the AUC. Overall, 3 072 611 MPI scans were performed in Ontario during our study period. The mean monthly rate increased from 14.1/10 000 in the period from January 2000 to October 2005 to 18.2/10 000 between November 2005 and June 2009. After this point in time, there was a reduction in rates, falling to a mean monthly rate of 17.1/10 000 between March 2014 and December 2015. Time series analysis revealed that publication of the 2009 AUC was associated with a significant reduction in MPI rates ( P <0.001). This translated into ≈88 849 fewer MPI scans at a cost savings of ≈72 million Canadian dollars. Conclusions Our results reflect a potential real‐world impact of the 2009 MPI AUC by demonstrating evidence of a significant effect on population‐based rates of MPI .
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 | 0.012 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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".