Is Call Karma Real? Resident After-Hours On-Call Imaging at the University of Saskatchewan: An Assessment of Call Volumes Including Inter-Resident Variability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Quantify resident caseload during call and determine if there are consistent differences in call volumes for individuals or resident subgroups. METHODS: Accession codes for after-hours computed tomography (CT) cases dictated by residents between July 1, 2012 and January 9, 2017 were reviewed. Case volumes by patient visits and body regions scanned were determined and categorized according to time period, year, and individual resident. Mean shift Relative Value Units (RVUs) were calculated by year. Descriptive statistics, linear mixed modeling, and linear regression determined mean values, differences between residents, associations between independent variables and outcomes, and changes over time. Consistent differences between residents were assessed as a measure of good or bad luck / karma on call. RESULTS: During this time there were 23,032 patients and 30,766 anatomic regions scanned during 1,652 call shifts among 32 residents. Over the whole period, there were on average 10.6 patients and 14.3 body regions scanned on weekday shifts and 22.3 patients and 29.4 body regions scanned during weekend shifts. Annually, the mean number of patients, body regions, and RVUs scanned per shift increased by an average of 0.2 (1%), 0.4 (2%), and 1.2 (5%) (all p < 0.05) respectively in regression models. There was variability in call experiences, but only 1 resident had a disproportionate number of higher volume calls and fewer lower volume shifts than expected. CONCLUSIONS: Annual increases in scan volumes were modest. Although residents' experiences varied, little of this was attributable to consistent personal differences, including luck or call karma.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".