MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4379015101 · doi:10.3899/jrheum.2023-0409

Addressing Rheumatology Resident Well-Being Is Critical to the Rheumatology Workforce and the Care of Our Patients

2023· letter· en· W4379015101 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Dana Jerome, Alan Liang Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2023
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBurnoutDepersonalizationMedicineEmotional exhaustionWorkforceRheumatologyInternal medicinePopulationFamily medicineClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Matriculating medical students have lower levels of burnout compared to age-matched college graduates,1 and yet residents and practicing physicians have higher rates of burnout compared to the general population,2,3 suggesting that medical training may play a role in increasing rates of burnout. Burnout, characterized by Maslach and Jackson as the triad of depersonalization, emotional exhaustion, and loss of a sense of personal accomplishment,4 is well documented in physicians around the world and has been shown to be increasing over time, particularly after the start of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.5,6 There is a lack of longitudinal data on the effect of the pandemic on rheumatologists specifically, although in a survey of Canadian rheumatologists conducted between 2020 and 2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic, 51% of rheumatologists met the criteria for burnout.7 A recent Medscape survey reported that rheumatologists have the second-highest burnout levels among 29 specialties.8 In this issue of The Journal of Rheumatology , McGoldrick et al9 evaluated burnout among American rheumatology fellows in a cross-sectional study performed in 2019. One hundred five fellows completed a survey designed to evaluate burnout using an adapted version of the previously validated Maslach Burnout Inventory.10 The authors also measured secondary outcomes such as depression, quality of life, and fatigue.9 They posed open-ended questions to collect qualitative data on perceived factors that reduce and factors that worsen burnout. McGoldrick et al found that 38.5% of postgraduate year (PGY) 4 and 16.7% of PGY5/6 fellows had at least 1 symptom of burnout.9 PGY4 fellows had higher rates of burnout, more depression, worse fatigue, and worse quality of life compared to PGY5 fellows. Younger age was associated with higher levels of burnout, but there was no variation by gender, race/ethnicity, or … Address correspondence to Dr. D.C. Jerome, Women’s College Hospital, 76 Grenville Street, Toronto, ON M5S 1B2, Canada.

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)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.003

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.357 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Rheumatology→Same topicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnout→French-language works237,207→