MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2893371469 · doi:10.1016/j.carj.2018.05.005

Prevalence of Burnout among Canadian Radiologists and Radiology Trainees

2018· article· en· W2893371469 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nanxi Zha, Michael N. Patlas, Nick Neuheimer, Richard Duszak

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Association of Radiologists Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDepersonalizationBurnoutEmotional exhaustionMedicineRadiologyFamily medicineClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Physician burnout is on the rise compared to the average population, and radiology burnout rates are ranked high compared to other specialties. We aim to assess radiologist and radiology trainee burnout in Canada. METHODS: A survey using the abbreviated 7-item Maslach Burnout Inventory that characterizes burnout symptoms into personal accomplishment, emotional exhaustion, and depersonalization was sent to all eligible members of the Canadian Association of Radiologists in January 2018. The anonymous survey was hosted on SurveyMonkey for 1 month. A reminder e-mail was sent halfway through the survey period. RESULTS: Overall, 262 of 1401 invited radiology trainees and radiologists completed the survey (response rate 18.7%). With regards to personal accomplishment, we observed that (1) burnout in this domain improved with increased years worked and (2) milder symptoms were observed in community radiologists compared with their academic counterparts. In comparison with other studies of radiologist burnout, we found mild burnout symptoms in personal accomplishment, but severe symptoms in the burnout domains of both emotional exhaustion and depersonalization. CONCLUSIONS: Canadian radiologists and radiology trainees reported above average burnout symptoms with regard to both emotional exhaustion and depersonalization. Future research directions include exploring etiologies of burnout and implementation of treatment strategies based on these identified problem areas.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.106

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.326 · 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

Citations50
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Association of Radiologists JournalSame topicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnoutFrench-language works237,207