MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391504674 · doi:10.1093/jbmr/zjae019

Defining the key clinician skills and attributes for competency in managing patients with osteoporosis and fragility fractures

2024· article· en· W4391504674 on OpenAlexaff
Lesley E. Jackson, Kenneth G. Saag, Sindhu R. Johnson, Maria I. Danila

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Mineral Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDelphi Technique in Research
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesRheumatology Research Foundation
KeywordsMedicineDelphi methodReferralHealth careDelphiOsteoporosisBone healthFamily medicineArtificial intelligenceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Osteoporosis and fragility fractures are managed by clinicians across many medical specialties. The key competencies of clinicians delivering bone health care have not been systematically established. We aimed to develop a decision rule to define the threshold of adequate skills and attributes associated with clinical competency in bone health for a clinician serving as a referral source for bone health care. Using a modified-Delphi method, we invited clinicians with expertise in treating osteoporosis and representatives of patient advocacy groups focused on bone health to create a list of desirable characteristics of a clinician with bone health competency. Characteristics were defined as "attributes" with "levels" within each attribute. Participants prioritized levels by perceived importance. To identify the cut points for defining adequate competency, participants next ranked 20 hypothetical clinicians defined by various levels of attributes from highest to lowest likelihood of having adequate bone health competency. Lastly, we conducted a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to generate a weighted score for each attribute/level. The threshold for competency was a priori determined as the total weighted score at which ≥70% of participants agreed a clinician had adequate bone health competency. Thirteen participants generated lists of desirable characteristics, and 30 participants ranked hypothetical scenarios and participated in the DCE. The modified-Delphi exercise generated 108 characteristics, which were reduced to 8 categories with 20 levels with associated points. The maximum possible score was 25 points. A summed threshold score of >12 points classified a clinician as having adequate bone health competency. We developed a numeric additive decision rule to define clinicians across multiple specialties as having adequate competency in managing bone health/osteoporosis. Our data provide a rigorously defined criteria for a clinician with competency in bone health and can be used to quantitate the skills of clinicians participating in bone health research and clinical 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.216
Threshold uncertainty score0.336

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.389 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bone and Mineral ResearchSame topicDelphi Technique in ResearchFrench-language works237,207