Ocular foreign bodies: evolution of professional roles and public costs in Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose In 2003, Quebec optometrists were legally enabled to extract superficial ocular foreign bodies, with part of this service covered by the universal health insurance. This study analyses the evolution of roles for professionals managing this condition (optometrists, ophthalmologists, emergency physicians and family physicians) and the related public healthcare costs. Methods Data from the provincial health insurance were combined to demographic and annual healthcare workforce statistics. Across professions and sociosanitary regions, variations in annual rates of conditions treated were calculated, as well as variations in public healthcare costs. Linear regression slopes of these variations were used as indicators of linear trends. Results Between 2010 and 2016, the proportion of cases managed by optometrists increases from 32% to 44%, following a significant trend (p < 0.007). For family physicians, the proportion of cases managed decreases from 49% to 33%, following a significant trend (p < 0.0001). The increase in optometrists managing cases is visible in almost all sociosanitary regions, reaching +19%. A significant trend was observed for increasing healthcare costs for optometrists (p < 0.008) and ophthalmologists (p < 0.004) and for decreasing healthcare costs for family physicians (p < 0.001). In 2016, optometrists managed 44% of cases, representing 13% of related healthcare costs. Conclusion In Quebec, optometrists are now the professionals managing the largest proportion of superficial ocular foreign bodies, across the province. There is an apparent shift from the proportion of cases managed by family physicians, which have similarly decreased.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".