MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6963951825 · doi:10.25384/sage.c.6824054

Time Required for Gross Examination of Routine Second and Third Trimester Singleton Placentas by Pathologists’ Assistants

2023· other· en· W6963951825 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueSage Journals Data · 2023
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSingletonConfidence intervalWorkloadStaffingMultivariate analysisStandard deviationGestational agePregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction:In both Canada and the United States, workload measurement for anatomic pathology is mainly based on complexity and clinical significance of specimens, with gross examination being a considerable contributor. While Pathologists’ Assistants (PAs) play an increasing role in gross examination, there is little known regarding the time required for PAs to complete grossing tasks. This information is essential for effective staffing and workload management in pathology laboratories. The objective of our study was to determine the time required for PAs to gross second and third trimester singleton placentas in a large tertiary hospital with a significant perinatal pathology service.Materials and Methods:For our study, 7 certified PAs each grossed a minimum of 10 second and third trimester singleton placentas using a standard placental grossing protocol, an electronic laboratory information system, and voice recognition dictation software. Placental specimens requiring photography, sampling for ancillary studies, or immediate pathologist’s consultation were excluded. We calculated average and standard deviation of grossing times for each PA, overall average grossing time, and 95% confidence interval using a mixed linear regression model. We analyzed the impact of PA job experience, degree obtained, and number of blocks prepared on overall average in a multivariate analysis.Results:The mean grossing times for each PA ranged from 11.0 (standard deviation [sd] = 2.0) to 17.8 (sd = 4.5) minutes. The overall average grossing time was 14.5 minutes, with a 95% confidence interval of 11.7 to 17.3 minutes. In multivariate analysis, an increase in the number of blocks prepared was significantly associated with longer overall average grossing time. If 4 blocks were prepared consistently, the model predicted a slightly lower overall average of 13.3 minutes, with a 95% confidence interval of 10.9 to 15.7 minutes.Discussion:To our knowledge, our study is the first to objectively report time required for PAs to perform gross examinations of routine second and third trimester singleton placentas. The methodology of our study is replicable and can be applied to other specimen types and laboratory settings. Previously, estimated grossing times for specimens were primarily based on retrospective surveys, which were susceptible to recall errors and subjectivity. However, our study demonstrates objective data collection is achievable. Furthermore, the data collected from this study offer valuable insights into the accuracy of previous and current pathology workload models for second and third trimester singleton placentas.

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.898
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSage Journals DataFrench-language works237,207