MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403955362 · doi:10.30770/2572-1852-110.3.9

Risk Based Regulation in Quality Assurance: Selection of (and Benefits Experienced by) Registrants Undertaking Regulator-mandated Peer Review

2024· article· en· W4403955362 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Regulation · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Malpractice and Liability Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaColumbia CollegeCollege of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality assuranceRegulatorSelection (genetic algorithm)Peer reviewBusinessRisk analysis (engineering)Computer sciencePolitical scienceMarketingBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose:. To identify risk and protective factors associated with physician performance in practice; to use this information to create a risk assessment scale; and, to test use of the risk assessment scale with a new population of assessed physicians.Design:. Physician assessments that were completed by community-based physicians between March 2016 and February 2022 (n =2708) were gathered to determine what professional characteristics and practice context factors were associated with poor peer practice assessment (PPA). The predictive capacity of the resulting model was then tested against a new sample of physician assessments completed between March 2022 and February 2023 (n =320).Results:. N=2401 physicians were eligible for inclusion in a logistic regression analysis, which resulted in an empirical model containing 11 variables that was able to account for 21.6% of the variance in the likelihood of receiving a poor PPA generated by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia. The resulting model, when tested against 320 new cases, was able to predict good versus poor PPA performance with a sensitivity of 0.79 and specificity of 0.75. Not having undertaken peer review (OR=1.47) created a risk like that arising from a full decade passing since completion of medical school (OR=1.50).Conclusion:. In addition to being the largest known study of its type, this work builds on similar studies by demonstrating the capacity to use regulator-mandated peer review to empirically identify physicians who are at risk of substandard performance using factors that are safe from claims of violating Human Rights Codes; that emphasize modifiable aspects of practice; and that can be readily updated to account for change over time.

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.

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaMetaresearch
Domain: Evaluation · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalmedium
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalmedium
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.504
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.492
Teacher spread0.392 · 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