MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409510276 · doi:10.1016/j.lana.2025.101095

Expanding healthcare capacity in Canada: the potential of internationally trained physicians

2025· article· en· W4409510276 on OpenAlexaffabout
Luis Francisco Leiva Tobelem, Fábio Ynoe de Moraes, Filipe Nadir Caparica Santos

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Regional Health - Americas · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careBusinessNursingMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada's healthcare system is facing a severe shortage of doctors, leaving millions of Canadians struggling to access essential primary and specialist care. Despite substantial investment in healthcare, Canada still falls behind other OECD countries in having enough physicians to meet patient needs. This crisis, fueled by inadequate workforce planning, an aging population, and increasing physician burnout, has forced more patients to rely on emergency departments for basic care, driving up costs and reducing quality of service. Internationally trained physicians (ITPs) represent a significant yet underutilized resource. However, they encounter numerous barriers, including restrictive licensing practices, insufficient residency spots, and accreditation systems that occasionally value training length more than clinical performance or demonstrated competency. To address these urgent challenges, Canada should expand on competency-based accreditation methods, build on existing Practice Ready Assessment programs, create more residency placements for ITPs, and reduce bureaucratic hurdles. Taking immediate steps toward these reforms will improve healthcare access, patient outcomes, and ensure long-term sustainability of healthcare across Canada.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.934
Threshold uncertainty score0.477

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.007
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Regional Health - AmericasSame topicGlobal Health Workforce IssuesFrench-language works237,207