Assessment of clinical consultations in an academic occupational medicine clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Occupational medicine clinical consultation services are relatively under-recognized and under-utilized in Canada. AIMS: To describe clinical consultations in a university-affiliated general occupational medicine clinic. METHODS: All of the charts of patients seen in referral to our general occupational medicine clinic over a 2-year period were reviewed to extract information to provide a descriptive summary of the nature of these consultations. We evaluated patient demographic factors and work- and exposure-related information, as well as the source of referral and the nature of the presenting clinical problem. RESULTS: The 131 patients had a mean (SD) age of 50.6 (14.0) years, 55% were men and 62% were referred by their family physicians. They presented with a broad spectrum of clinical problems, with neurological problems (29%) and multisystem problems (24%) being the most prevalent. The patients worked in a variety of occupational sectors, with manufacturing and the service sector being the most frequent. Seventy-two per cent of patients came for investigation of an occupational problem and 28% came for an environmental issue. Only 36% of patients were found to have their presenting problem due to an exposure, which highlights the need for in-depth clinical assessment before making a causal attribution. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides information about the nature of clinical problems seen in an academic general occupational medicine referral clinic. The results might assist in increasing awareness and utilization of occupational medicine clinical services, which are beneficial for patient education, diagnosis and management.
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 | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 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".