Over‐use of thyroid testing in Canadian and UK primary care in frequent attenders: A cross‐sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) is a common test used to detect and monitor clinically significant hypo- and hyperthyroidism. Population-based screening of asymptomatic adults for thyroid disorders is not recommended. OBJECTIVE: The research objectives were to determine patterns of TSH testing in Canadian and English primary care practices, as well as patient and physician practice characteristics associated with testing TSH for primary care patients with no identifiable indication. METHODS: In this 2-year cross-sectional observational study, Canadian and English electronic medical record databases were used to identify patients and physician practices. Cohorts of patients aged 18 years or older, without identifiable indications for TSH testing, were generated from these databases. Analyses were performed using a random-effects logistic regression to determine patient and physician practice characteristics associated with increased testing. We determined the proportion of TSH tests performed concurrently with at least one common screening blood test (lipid profile or hemoglobin A1c). Standardised proportions of TSH test per family practice were used to examine the heterogeneity in the populations. RESULTS: At least one TSH test was performed in 35.97% (N = 489 663) of Canadian patients and 29.36% (N = 1 030 489) of English patients. Almost all TSH tests in Canada and England (95.69% and 99.23% respectively) were within the normal range (0.40-5.00 mU/L). A greater number of patient-physician encounters was the strongest predictor of TSH testing. It was determined that 51.40% of TSH tests in Canada and 76.55% in England were performed on the same day as at least one other screening blood test. There was no association between the practice size and proportion of asymptomatic patients tested. CONCLUSIONS: This comparative binational study found TSH patterns suggestive of over-testing and potentially thyroid disorder screening in both countries. There may be significant opportunities to improve the appropriateness of TSH ordering in Canada and England and therefore improve the allocation of limited system resources.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".