The Stethoscope in 19<sup>th</sup>-Century American Practice: Ideas, Rhetoric, and Eventual Adoption
Bibliographic record
Abstract
in 1819. In his treatise, Laennec included details of his new method of using the stethoscope to provide physiological and pathological evaluation of patients. American physicians attended lectures and clinics at Paris hospitals and carried this information back to their respective medical schools and practices. This was accomplished by a relatively limited number of elite American physicians who were able to take advantage of travel abroad and whose practices were academically affiliated. However, it is a well-substantiated historical claim that the adoption of the stethoscope by most American physicians was slow. There are many reasons for slow adoption of the stethoscope in America, among which are lack of formal education, including bedside training in the stethoscope, complexity of interpretation of auscultatory information, hesitancy of the patient and physician to have an instrument placed between them, and lack of opportunities for continuing education for physicians after leaving medical school. As the nineteenth century progressed, scientific ideas and rhetoric related to auscultation and the stethoscope became more widespread, reflecting gradual acceptance and adoption of the stethoscope by American practitioners. In this article, I examine the ideas and rhetoric in medical journal articles, advertisements, and medical school textbooks to learn what was thought by physicians to be important in their practice. Advertisement of medical school curricula with mention of specific course work or lectures related to auscultation or the stethoscope is noted, reflecting increased interest in the stethoscope as an adjunct to physical examination. This information introduces evidence to test and bolster the existing historical claims of slow adoption of the stethoscope by addressing in more detail when and why adoption by American physicians became widespread.
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 | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".