MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2966530243 · doi:10.1177/1357633x19864825

Pathology perspective on gynaecologic malignancy screening questions in electronic consultation

2019· article· en· W2966530243 on OpenAlexafffund
Carol Wang, Clare Liddy, Amir Afkham, Shahidul Islam, Fady Shehata, Glen Posner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Telemedicine and Telecare · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicHealthcare Systems and Technology
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalChamplain Regional CollegeBruyèreUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsReferralMedicineFamily medicinePrimary careObstetrics and gynaecologyGynecologyPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The electronic consultation service, eConsult, is an asynchronous web-based platform for provider-to-provider consultation with specialists. This study described the utilization of eConsult by primary care providers to obtain specialist opinion in gynaecologic malignancy screening, with a specific focus on pathology-related inquiries. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional retrospective review of eConsults submitted to obstetrics/gynaecology between September 2011 and December 2016. All questions pertaining to gynaecologic cancer screening and their pathologies were included. Each question was classified based on a pre-determined taxonomy. The mandatory primary care providers' exit surveys were analysed to determine eConsult's influence on patient care, primary care providers' referral patterns, primary care providers' satisfaction and educational value. RESULTS: In total, 1,357 electronic consultations were submitted to the obstetrics and gynaecology service during the study period, of which 329 met inclusion criteria. Indications for a screening test based on patient risk factors made up 36% of consults pertaining to gynaecologic malignancy screening and 17% were inquiries about test intervals based on previous results. Primary care providers pointed out gaps in current screening guidelines. In total, 38% of primary care providers reported the eConsult service helped avoid a specialist referral, whereas 47% of primary care providers received new or additional courses of action. Pathology report interpretation accounted for 5% of eConsults and 6% of primary care providers wished for clarification of incidental pathology findings. CONCLUSION: This study uncovered areas of uncertainty among primary care providers regarding gynaecologic cancer screening and gaps in current clinical guidelines. Furthermore, the role of pathology consultants in an eConsult platform is explored and may be extrapolated into practice.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Telemedicine and TelecareSame topicHealthcare Systems and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207