MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3139088431 · doi:10.1016/j.tipsro.2021.01.005

Exploring opportunities & pathways for advanced practice radiation therapy roles in the United States

2021· article· en· W3139088431 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Samantha Skubish, Clodagh Starrs, Danielle McDonagh

Bibliographic record

VenueTechnical Innovations & Patient Support in Radiation Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicManagement of metastatic bone disease
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadiation TherapistClinical PracticeMedicineScopusScope of practiceRadiation therapyMEDLINEFamily medicineHealth careInternal medicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The evolution of practice of Radiation Therapy in the United States (U.S.) is inevitable. The scope of a radiation therapists role has progressed with advancing technology, implementation of special procedures and patient care requirements. Internationally, Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom have formalized this evolution through the Advanced Practice Radiation Therapist (APRT) role to provide new models of care, to meet growing demands in the practice of Radiation Oncology, to increase efficiency, decrease cost and retain skilled staff (Harnett et al., 2018; Society of Radiographers; Linden et al., 2019; Coleman et al., 2014) [1–4]. Through evidence based practice, the APRT role has proven to provide benefits for multiple stakeholders including service-reconfiguration to reduce wait times, developing and retaining highly skilled radiation therapists, treatment review and most importantly improving patient care within much needed patient cohorts such as the palliative population (Duffton et al., 2019) [5]. The U.S. is no exception to requiring innovative care models and solutions to similar complex, care delivery challenges experienced internationally. The U.S. is experiencing an increase in demand for cancer services and a rapid rate of technological and treatment advancements. Under the current infrastructure, this has impacted the daily tasks of physicians; increasing workload, increasing the complexity of clinical decision making, increasing movement toward site specific subspecialty practice and pushing the scope of radiation therapists informally toward maximization, increased autonomy and a higher level of education and specialized skills (American Society of Clinical Oncology, 2016; ARRT, 2020; Vu et al., 2018) [6–8]. Objective The following reviews the current radiation therapy practice and professional landscape in the United States as it relates to advanced practice, exploring opportunities and challenges under the U.S. health care infrastructure. This broad analysis provides comparison to other countries and disciplines such as the Radiologist Assistant and Nurse Practitioner for potential pathways to establishing the role and describes current needs and value of the expanding scope of RT's practicing in the U.S.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.274
Threshold uncertainty score0.545

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0180.006
Scholarly communication0.0110.008
Open science0.0020.013
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.257
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.143 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations17
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTechnical Innovations & Patient Support in Radiation OncologySame topicManagement of metastatic bone diseaseFrench-language works237,207