MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889669580 · doi:10.23889/ijpds.v3i4.996

Linking medical licensing examination scores with longitudinal physician practice data using a privacy preserving protocol

2018· article· en· W2889669580 on OpenAlexaffabout
Niels Thakkar, Fang Tian, Wendy Yen, André De Champlain

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Population Data Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Malpractice and Liability Issues
Canadian institutionsMedical Council of CanadaCollege of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLicensureCohortEncryptionProtocol (science)Competence (human resources)CredentialMedical recordInformation privacyPrivacy lawKey (lock)Internet privacyComputer securityComputer scienceBusinessMedicineMedical educationPsychologyPrivacy policy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IntroductionMedical education and regulatory bodies do not often share performance data due to privacy concerns. Innovative approaches are needed to facilitate research while preserving security and privacy. To this end, a privacy preserving protocol was employed linking medical examination and regulatory data to examine future physician competence across the career.
 Objectives and ApproachThis study extends previous work linking de-identified Canadian medical licensing examination data with medical regulatory outcomes to answer the following question: is there a predictive relationship between licensing examination scores and post-licensure practice outcomes? A privacy preserving protocol using a third party organization was employed to link data between two disparate organizations - a medical licensing examination organization (MLE) and a medical regulatory authority (MRA). Multiple years of licensing examinations were linked to thirteen years of regulatory assessment outcomes (2004 – 2016) without identifiable data being shared to either party.
 ResultsMedical Identification Number for Canada (MINC) was used as a common identifying variable between the two organizations. First, the analytic cohort was created by linking identifying variables of the physicians of interest from both parties, thereby creating a common cohort. The third-party organization then created an encryption key using the common cohort and the MLE examination data. The key was given to the MRA and the encrypted, de-identified examination data was given back to the MLE. Lastly, the MRA data was de-identified, encrypted and transferred to the MLE for analysis. This ensured neither party had access to each other’s encrypted data and the key simultaneously.
 Conclusion/ImplicationsPrivacy preserving protocols enhance opportunities for novel research questions and data linkages within and across sectors; here, results from this analysis may enhance the utility of medical licensing exams by providing evidence for secondary uses. Furthermore, it will offer other physician organizations evidence to support physicians across their career trajectory.

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 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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.606
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.013
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.349
GPT teacher head0.597
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Population Data ScienceSame topicMedical Malpractice and Liability IssuesFrench-language works237,207