MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403291131 · doi:10.2196/57157

Navigating Nephrology's Decline Through a GPT-4 Analysis of Internal Medicine Specialties in the United States: Qualitative Study

2024· article· en· W4403291131 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jing Miao, Charat Thongprayoon, Oscar A. Garcia Valencia, Iasmina Craici, Wisit Cheungpasitporn

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Education · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternal medicineQualitative researchNephrologyMedicineQualitative analysisFamily medicineGerontologyPolitical scienceSociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The 2024 Nephrology fellowship match data show the declining interest in nephrology in the United States, with an 11% drop in candidates and a mere 66% (321/488) of positions filled. Objective: The study aims to discern the factors influencing this trend using ChatGPT, a leading chatbot model, for insights into the comparative appeal of nephrology versus other internal medicine specialties. Methods: Using the GPT-4 model, the study compared nephrology with 13 other internal medicine specialties, evaluating each on 7 criteria including intellectual complexity, work-life balance, procedural involvement, research opportunities, patient relationships, career demand, and financial compensation. Each criterion was assigned scores from 1 to 10, with the cumulative score determining the ranking. The approach included counteracting potential bias by instructing GPT-4 to favor other specialties over nephrology in reverse scenarios. Results: GPT-4 ranked nephrology only above sleep medicine. While nephrology scored higher than hospice and palliative medicine, it fell short in key criteria such as work-life balance, patient relationships, and career demand. When examining the percentage of filled positions in the 2024 appointment year match, nephrology's filled rate was 66%, only higher than the 45% (155/348) filled rate of geriatric medicine. Nephrology's score decreased by 4%-14% in 5 criteria including intellectual challenge and complexity, procedural involvement, career opportunity and demand, research and academic opportunities, and financial compensation. Conclusions: ChatGPT does not favor nephrology over most internal medicine specialties, highlighting its diminishing appeal as a career choice. This trend raises significant concerns, especially considering the overall physician shortage, and prompts a reevaluation of factors affecting specialty choice among medical residents.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.570
Teacher spread0.428 · 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 designQualitative
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical EducationSame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207