The Value of Board Recertification Among Physicians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Katya Peri,1 Mark J Eisenberg1– 3 1Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, QC, Canada; 2Departments of Medicine and of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada; 3Division of Cardiology, Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, QC, CanadaCorrespondence: Mark J Eisenberg, Divisions of Cardiology and Clinical Epidemiology, Jewish General Hospital/McGill University, 3755 Côte Ste-Catherine Road, Suite H-421.1, Montreal, Quebec, H3T 1E2, Canada, Tel +1 (514) 340-8222 Ext.23564, Fax +1 (514) 340-7564, Email mark.eisenberg@mcgill.caAbstract: An ongoing challenge among healthcare certifying organizations is identifying an effective manner of evaluating a physician’s competency. The medical field is constantly changing, with new technology, research and pharmacology available, and physicians must be kept up to date in order to properly care for their patients. Maintenance of certification and specifically, recertification exams, are used to verify that a high standard of care is consistently met across all medical specialties. However, different countries have different structures in place to ensure physicians are kept abreast of the latest medical knowledge. For instance, American physicians must recertify themselves every ten years by passing a standardized exam to maintain their credentials. In comparison, Canadian physicians are not required to pass a formal examination. This contrast puts into question the value of the recertification exam in medical professional development programs. We outline the rectification situation in both Canada and the US and recommend MOC programs similar to Canada’s, which does not require a recertification examination.Keywords: professional development, continuing medical education, recertification exams
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 | 0.033 | 0.321 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".