Standards for Substantive Equivalency between Continuing Professional Development/Continuing Medical Education (CPD/CME) Accreditation Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The International Academy for Continuing Professional Development Accreditation (IACPDA) is dedicated to advocating for and enhancing the development, implementation and evolution of continuing medical education (CME)/continuing professional development (CPD) accreditation systems throughout the world by providing an opportunity for individuals in leadership positions to (a) learn about the values, principles and metrics of varying CME/CPD accreditation systems; (b) explore the accreditation standards for CME/CPD provider organisations and activities under differing systems; and (c) foster evaluations to measure the impact of CME/CPD accreditation systems on physician learning, competence, performance, and healthcare outcomes. IACPDA has developed a shared set of international standards to guide the accreditation of CME/CPD for medical doctors and healthcare teams globally, which have been adopted in the Cologne Consensus Conference on 10 September 2020. These standards will also be used to determine substantive equivalency between accrediting bodies.
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 | 0.282 | 0.480 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".