MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392561820 · doi:10.1503/cjs.007023

Evaluating the scope of rural general surgery in British Columbia

2024· article· en· W4392561820 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Rebecca Afford, Sara D. Bolin, Dunavan Morris-Janzen, Alastair McLellan, Nicole Robbins, Tracy Scott, Ahmer Karimuddin

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Surgery · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSpecialtyScope (computer science)General practiceRural areaScope of practiceFamily medicineSurgeryHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Rural general surgeons perform many procedures outside the conventional scope of the specialty. Unique to British Columbia, the Rural Practice Subsidiary Agreement (RSA) formally defines rurality in the province. Our goal is to understand the scope of practice for BC’s rural general surgeons and whether it has been affected over time by changing privileging guidelines. Methods: Medical Services Plan (MSP) data were collected from 2011 to 2021 for procedures billed by general surgeons in communities defined by the RSA as rural. We categorized codes from the MSP based on surgical specialty. For each community, we calculated the totals for these categories considering what other surgical specialties were present as well as changes over time. Results: From 2011 to 2021, 222 905 procedures were performed in 23 rural communities in BC. Colonoscopies were the most frequently performed procedure (n = 80 114, 35.9%), followed by colorectal (n = 23 891, 10.7%) and hernia procedures (n = 20 911, 9.4%). The most common unconventional procedures were plastic surgeries (n = 8077, 3.6%). Classification within the RSA did not significantly influence the percentage of unconventional general surgery procedures performed (p = 0.4). When another surgical specialty was present, there was often a decrease in the number of that specialty’s procedures performed by general surgeons. Over the past decade, rural general surgeons performed fewer unconventional general surgery procedures (p < 0.001). Conclusion: General surgeons working in rural communities perform a variety of procedures based on resources, community need, and access to other specialists. Over the last decade, this appears to have been influenced by new privileging guidelines. Understanding the scope of rural general surgery can inform training opportunities and, as there is a migration away from rural surgeons performing as many unconventional procedures, can elucidate the implications on patients and communities.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.137

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.143
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of SurgerySame topicGlobal Health Workforce IssuesFrench-language works237,207