An Evaluation of On-Call Otolaryngology Consultations: Assessing an Increasing Workload
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study compares the volume of on-call otolaryngology consultations in a tertiary care center over a 5-year period. The objective of this study was to identify changes in the volume of consultations in an inpatient setting. METHODS: A cross-sectional retrospective study was performed to determine the volume of consultations. The years 2010 and 2015 were the timepoints for the cross-sectional analysis. A review of electronic medical records was performed to identify all patients associated with the otolaryngology service from the emergency department, inpatient wards, and intensive care units. The primary outcome was the number of otolaryngology consultations per year. RESULTS: The number of on-call consultations in 2010 was 992. In 2015, the number of on-call consultations was 2174. This represents a 120% increase in the number of consultations over a 5-year period ( P < .001). CONCLUSION: There has been a significant increase in the volume of on-call otolaryngology consultations at our tertiary care center. This increase has the potential to adversely affect patient care. A better understanding of the cause of this increase may allow policymakers and health care practitioners to improve patient access, physician workloads, and resource allocation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".