Role of a Regional Multidisciplinary Conference in the Diagnosis of Interstitial Lung Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: The interstitial lung disease (ILD) specialists in Vancouver participate in a multidisciplinary discussion (MDD) that is primarily used internally for patients seen by these specialists. The MDD is also used remotely (externally) by general pulmonologists to increase access to this service. OBJECTIVES: To describe the impact of an MDD on the diagnosis and management of ILD in these two patient cohorts, and to report the satisfaction of referring pulmonologists with this service. METHODS: This retrospective cross-sectional study included patients who underwent MDD review between March 2014 and June 2017. Data were extracted from standardized MDD records and comparisons were made between the internal and external ILD cohorts. Pulmonologists who used the external review service completed an anonymous survey addressing their satisfaction with components of the MDD. RESULTS: The 209 internal patients and 91 external patients had similar clinical characteristics. MDD review led to a change in diagnosis in 40% of patients, including 36% of internal patients and 48% of external patients (P = 0.04). For patients without a working diagnosis, 44% were provided a confident ILD diagnosis following MDD, including 78% of patients with a surgical lung biopsy and 37% of patients without a surgical lung biopsy (P < 0.001). After MDD review, treatment was started in 45% of patients on no ILD therapy, and treatment was changed in 45% of patients on ILD therapy. Overall, 93% of the 14 respondents (out of 16 surveyed) were very or somewhat satisfied with the MDD external review service. CONCLUSIONS: Similar to previous publications, our study suggests an important role of MDD in the diagnosis and management of ILD, and further demonstrates that MDD of external patients is a viable service that allows greater and more rapid access to ILD expertise.
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 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".