The Impact of Star Physicians on Diffusion of a Medical Technology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation studies the effect of star power among physicians on the diffusion of a medical technology. Studies of the diffusion of medical technologies document institutional and market level factors influencing diffusion rates and patterns. The role of the physician in the diffusion of medical technology in hospitals is not widely studied. This dissertation seeks to fill this gap. Certain "star" physicians and hospitals are recognized as highly attractive to patients. A star physician is defined as a physician who meets any of the following criteria: (i) completed residency training at top 30 ranked hospital, (ii) graduated from a top 30 medical school or (iii) is included in Castle & Connolly's Top Docs publications. A star hospital is defined as a member of the American Association of Medical Colleges' Council of Teaching Hospitals. Using quarterly data on all bariatric surgeries performed in the state of Pennsylvania from 1995 through 2007, I measure the effect of stars physicians and star hospitals on the diffusion of a surgical innovation in bariatric surgery called laparoscopic gastric bypass surgery. I use logistic and OLS regression to test for effects at both the hospital and physician level. At the hospital level, I find that having a star physician at a hospital raises the likelihood of that hospital diffusing laparoscopic gastric bypass from eleven percent to eighty-nine percent. I find that over the time period from first quarter 2000 to fourth quarter 2001, being a star hospital raises the likelihood of that hospital diffusing laparoscopic gastric bypass from thirteen percent to eighty-seven percent. At the physician level, the empirical results indicate that star physicians exert positive asymmetric influence on the adoption and utilization rates of non-stars at the same hospital. This dissertation supports earlier work in technology diffusion by finding a positive influence from key individuals. It adds to the literature on medical technology diffusion by testing a new data set for a chronic disease treatment.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".