MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791383299 · doi:10.4300/jgme-d-17-00580.1

International Medical Graduates in the US Physician Workforce and Graduate Medical Education: Current and Historical Trends

2018· article· en· W2791383299 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Graduate Medical Education · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIMGWorkforceGraduate medical educationFamily medicineRepresentation (politics)Quarter (Canadian coin)MedicinePhysician assistantsMedical educationPsychologyHealth careNurse practitionersAccreditationPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Background Data show that international medical graduates (IMGs), both US and foreign born, are more likely to enter primary care specialties and practice in underserved areas. Comprehensive assessments of representation trends for IMGs in the US physician workforce are limited. Objective We reported current and historical representation trends for IMGs in the graduate medical education (GME) training pool and US practicing physician workforce. Methods We compared representation for the total GME and active practicing physician pools with the 20 largest residency specialties. A 2-sided test was used for comparison, with P < .001 considered significant. To assess significant increases in IMG GME trainee representation for the total pool and each of the specialties from 1990–2015, the slope was estimated using simple linear regression. Results IMGs showed significantly greater representation among active practicing physicians in 4 specialties: internal medicine (39%), neurology (31%), psychiatry (30%), and pediatrics (25%). IMGs in GME showed significantly greater representation in 5 specialties: pathology (39%), internal medicine (39%), neurology (36%), family medicine (32%), and psychiatry (31%; all P < .001). Over the past quarter century, IMG representation in GME has increased by 0.2% per year in the total GME pool, and 1.1% per year for family medicine, 0.5% for obstetrics and gynecology and general surgery, and 0.3% for internal medicine. Conclusions IMGs make up nearly a quarter of the total GME pool and practicing physician workforce, with a disproportionate share, and larger increases over our study period in certain specialties.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.711
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.378 · 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