MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2784542817

Does clinical exposure matter? Pilot assessment of patient visits in an urban family medicine residency program.

2018· article· en· W2784542817 on OpenAlexaffabout
Karl Iglar, Stuart Murdoch, Christopher Meaney, Paul Krueger

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoRoyal Victoria Regional Health CentreSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFamily medicineMedical diagnosisMedical recordAmbulatorySpecialtyPediatricsInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine the number of patient visits, patient demographic information, and diagnoses in an urban ambulatory care setting in a family medicine residency program, and assess the correlation between the number of patient visits and residents' in-training examination (ITE) scores. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of data from resident practice profiles, electronic medical records, and residents' final ITE scores. SETTING: Family medicine teaching unit in a community hospital in Barrie, Ont. PARTICIPANTS: Practice profile data were from family medicine residents enrolled in the program from July 1, 2013, to June 30, 2014, and electronic medical record and ITE data were from those enrolled in the program from July 1, 2010, to June 30, 2015. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of patient visits, patient characteristics (eg, sex, age), priority topics addressed in clinic, resident characteristics (eg, age, sex, level of residency), and residents' final ITE scores. RESULTS: Between July 1, 2013, and June 30, 2014, there were 11 115 patient visits. First-year residents had a mean of 5.48 patient visits per clinic, and second-year residents had a mean of 5.98 patient visits per clinic. A Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.68 was found to exist between the number of patients seen and the final ITE scores, with a 10.5% difference in mean score between residents who had 1251 or more visits and those who had 1150 or fewer visits. Three diagnoses (ie, epistaxis, meningitis, and neck pain) deemed important for Certification by the College of Family Physicians of Canada were not seen by any of the residents in clinic. CONCLUSION: There is a moderate correlation between the number of patients seen by residents in ambulatory care and ITE scores in family medicine. It is important to assess patients' demographic information and diagnoses made in resident practices to ensure an adequate clinical experience.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.135
GPT teacher head0.493
Teacher spread0.359 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes→French-language works237,207→