Evaluation of the Success With Which the College of American Pathologists Practice Management Committee Provides Pathology Practice Management and Business Operation Intelligence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT.—: Despite studies indicating its importance to pathology practice, there is a perception that pathologists are poorly trained in management and business operational (MBO) skills. The College of American Pathologists charges its Practice Management Committee (PMC) with providing MBO intelligence. PMC activities included the online course "Pathology Business Fundamentals" (PBF) and a series of roundtable webinars. OBJECTIVE.—: To determine the degree to which the PMC meets its charge of providing MBO education. DESIGN.—: We conducted evaluation surveys following the PBF course and roundtables. From these surveys we selected several outcome metrics to evaluate our objective. RESULTS.—: Six hundred fifty individuals attended the PBF course, 186 (29%) of whom completed course evaluation surveys. On a scale of 1 to 5 (5 = highest score), the mean aggregate score for "overall value" was 4.64. On a scale of 1 to 5 (5 = very likely), the mean aggregate score for our outcome metric, "intent to apply" was 4.54. Of 1539 individuals who had access to post-roundtable evaluation questionnaires, 378 (25%) completed evaluations; of these, 233 (62%) indicated that the PMC is their "primary source" for MBO. Of the 132 individuals who completed a second year-end roundtable evaluation survey, 98 (74%) agreed that the sessions were "one of the best sources available for support/guidance related to practice management." CONCLUSIONS.—: To our knowledge, this is the first study evaluating MBO education effectiveness for postgraduate pathologists and laboratory professionals. Based on evaluation survey data, the PMC appears to achieve its mission of providing adequate laboratory and pathology MBO information.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.084 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".