MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4396885755 · doi:10.17760/d20659813

The role of advanced practice providers in the growing nephrologist shortage

2024· dissertation· en· W4396885755 on OpenAlexaff
Alf Carroll

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsScience North
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSpecialtyHealth careFamily medicineEconomic shortageObservational studyPopulationHospital medicineWorkforceNursingEmergency medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Globally, there is a growing shortage of healthcare professionals working in the nephrology specialty, especially physicians. The issue is two-fold: an expanding population of patients with renal diseases and fewer physicians applying to nephrology fellowship programs to care for them.1 Advanced practice providers (APPs) such as physician assistants (PAs) and nurse practitioners (NPs) play a crucial role in the healthcare team, delivering similar services as their physician counterparts. Not only can APPs fill the gaps in physician shortages, but they can contribute to improvement in the emotional well-being of the entire healthcare team. One observational cross-sectional study2 of 420 family medicine clinicians found that teams containing physicians and APPs were associated with lower levels of burnout. Including APPs on healthcare teams can also impact care quality and cost efficiency. Another retrospective cohort study3 by Roy et al. evaluating approximately 5200 records of patients admitted to a hospital medicine floor found that patients co-managed by PAs and physicians had 3.9% lower total healthcare costs (95% Confidence Interval [CI], -7.5% to -0.3%, p < 0.05) with no significant difference in health outcomes compared to patients managed by teams of only physicians. Additionally, APP postgraduate residencies can assist in generating providers with adequate clinical knowledge and skills to care for patients. A comparative analysis4 found that inpatients co-managed by hospitalists and PAs in a 2-year postgraduate training program had lower all-cause mortality than those co-managed by hospitalists and residents in a traditional 3-year program (1.94% vs 2.85%, P < 0.001). Despite these findings, a lack of research regarding APPs in nephrology exists. This thesis aims to illustrate the nephrologist shortage, the expanding complexity of the patient population requiring kidney care, and how APPs can effectively fill this growing need.--Author's abstract

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.420 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes→French-language works237,207→