Causes of Inappropriate Laboratory Test Ordering from the Perspective of Medical Laboratory Technical Professionals: Implications for Research and Education
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Inappropriate laboratory test ordering is a significant and persistent problem. Many causes have been identified and studied. Medical laboratory professionals (MLPs) are technical staff within clinical laboratories who are uniquely positioned to comment on why inappropriate ordering occurs. We aimed to characterize existing MLP perceptions in this domain to reveal new or underemphasized interventional targets. METHODS: We developed and disseminated a self-administered survey to MLPs in Canada, including open-ended responses to questions about the causes of inappropriate laboratory test ordering. RESULTS: Four primary themes were identified from qualitative analysis: ordering-provider factors, communication factors, existing test-ordering processes, and patient factors. Although these factors can largely be found in previous literature, some are under-studied. CONCLUSION: MLP insights into nonphysician triage ordering and poor result communication provide targets for further investigation. A heavy focus on individual clinician factors suggests that current understandings and interprofessional skills in the MLP population can be improved.
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.
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 | 0.009 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it