Personal and Professional Characteristics of U.S. Dual-Boarded Critical Care Cardiologists in 2015
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the characteristics of U.S. physicians who are board certified in cardiology and critical care medicine ("dual-boarded cardiologists"). DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional study using a comprehensive database of licensed U.S. physicians linked to Medicare claims. SETTING: The United States. SUBJECTS: Dual-boarded cardiologists. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We used a comprehensive physician database to identify all physicians who were board certified in cardiology and critical care medicine before July 2015. We assessed physicians' characteristics and compared dual-boarded cardiologists with and without active board certification in critical care medicine and estimated the maximum proportion of 2014 Medicare Cardiac ICU admissions treated by dual-boarded cardiologists. Among 473 dual-boarded cardiologists, 16 (3.4%) were women; 468 (99%) and 85 (18%) maintained active board certification in cardiology and critical care medicine, respectively. Overall, 98 dual-boarded cardiologists (21%) submitted 1,215 total claims for critical care services in 2014. Compared to dual-boarded cardiologists without active board certification in critical care medicine, those with active certification had more publications (median publications: 6.5 vs 3.0; p = 0.002), were more likely to be professors (22.3% vs 9.5%; p = 0.003), and were more likely to bill Medicare for critical care services (29% vs 17.8%; p = 0.002). We estimated that no more than 0.47% of all 2014 Medicare Cardiac ICU admissions were treated by a dual-boarded cardiologist. CONCLUSIONS: Dual-boarded cardiologists appear to deliver a small proportion of all Cardiac ICU services received by Medicare beneficiaries. Optimizing the modern Cardiac ICU workforce will require greater efforts to promote and support the training of dual-boarded cardiologists.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".