MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220959627 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0265905

Pathologist workload, work distribution and significant absences or departures at a regional hospital laboratory

2022· article· en· W4220959627 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Bonert, Uzma Zafar, Raymond Maung, Ihab El-Shinnawy, Asghar Naqvi, Christian Finley, Jean‐Claude Cutz, Pierre Major, Anil Kapoor

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonMcMaster University Medical CentreUniversity of British ColumbiaMcMaster UniversityRoyal Inland Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkloadMedicineWork (physics)Gini coefficientLimitingStatisticsEmergency medicineComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Assess the work environment of salaried pathologists via (1) the national workload system (L4E), (2) work distribution among/in three hospital groups, and (3) the frequency of significant absences or departures (SADs). METHODS: Automated analysis of pathology reports from a regional laboratory (accessioned 2011-2019) using validated computer code. RESULTS: The study set contained 574,099 pathology reports, reported by 63 pathologists. The average yearly L4E workload units/full-time equivalent for three hospital groups were 8,101.6, 6,906.5 and 4,215.8. The average Gini coefficient for full-time pathologists in the three hospital groups were respectively 0.05, 0.16 and 0.23. The average yearly SADs rates were respectively 13%, 16% and 9%. The group with the highest SADs rate had the intermediate Gini coefficient and intermediate workload. CONCLUSIONS: High individual workload and work maldistribution appear to be associated with SADs. Individual workload maximums and greater transparency may be essential for limiting staff turnover, maintaining high morale, and efficient laboratory function with a high quality of care.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.092
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlFrench-language works237,207