Validating the knowledge represented by a self-organizing map with an expert-derived knowledge structure.

BACKGROUND: Professionals are reluctant to make use of machine learning results for tasks like curriculum development if they do not understand how the results were generated and what they mean. Visualizations of peer reviewed medical literature can summarize enormous amounts of information but are difficult to interpret. This article reports the validation of the meaning of a self-organizing map derived from the Medline/PubMed index of peer reviewed medical literature by its capacity to coherently summarize the references of a core psychiatric textbook. METHODS: Reference lists from ten editions of Kaplan and Sadock's Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry were projected onto a self-organizing map trained on Medical Subject Headings annotating the complete set of peer reviewed medical research articles indexed in the Medline/PubMed database (MedSOM). K-means clustering was applied to references from every edition to examine the ability of the self-organizing map to coherently summarize the knowledge contained within the textbook. RESULTS: MedSOM coherently clustered references into six psychiatric knowledge domains across ten editions (1967-2017). Clustering occurred at the abstract level of broad psychiatric practice including General/adult psychiatry, Child psychiatry, and Administrative psychiatry. CONCLUSIONS: The uptake of visualizations of published medical literature by medical experts for purposes like curriculum development depends upon validation of the meaning of the visualizations. The current research demonstrates that a self-organizing map (MedSOM) can validate the stability and coherence of the references used to support the knowledge claims of a standard psychiatric textbook, linking the products of machine learning to a widely accepted standard of knowledge.

Rapidly expanding gender-affirming care based on consensus instead of evidence justifies rigorous governance and transparency.

OBJECTIVE: Public services offering gender-affirming care to minors have rapidly expanded across Australia. Despite limited evidence of safety and efficacy, no public information about these services is routinely available. Data from freedom of information requests sent to Australian public gender services for minors is summarised. Gender service numbers increased rapidly in Queensland (2017:190 - 2022:922) and in Victoria (2019:472 - 2023:1290). Limited transparency prevented strong confidence in the number of patients receiving hormone therapy. Staff FTE employed by gender services jumped after 2020 in NSW (to 16.7 across two sites in 2023), Queensland (to 11.4 in 2023), Victoria (to 9.4 in 2022), and WA (to 10.2 in 2023). CONCLUSIONS: Despite low confidence in their safety and efficacy, the number of patients seen by public gender services has expanded rapidly since 2018. Limited transparency makes it difficult to judge the number of patients seen, treatments provided, and outcomes achieved. Safe, effective care of this vulnerable group requires clear treatment goals, and annual reporting.

Remote mental health clients prefer face-to-face consultations to telehealth during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To guide the efficient and effective provision of mental health services to clients in Central West and Far North Queensland, we surveyed preferences for face-to-face or in-person contact. METHODS: A clinician-designed survey of contact preferences was offered to 248 clients of mental health services in Far North and Central West Queensland in mid-2020. With the onset of COVID-19, the survey was modified to measure the impact of the pandemic. RESULTS: Just over half of the services' clients participated in the survey (50.4%), of whom more were female (63.2%). Of the participants, 46.3% in Far North and 8.6% in Central West Queensland identified as Indigenous. Strong resistance to telehealth before the pandemic across groups (76%) was moderated during COVID-19 (42.4%), an effect that appeared likely to continue past the pandemic for Central West clients (34.5%). Far North clients indicated their telehealth reluctance would return after the pandemic (77.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that remote Australians strongly prefer in-person mental health care to telehealth. Although the COVID-19 pandemic increased acceptance of telehealth across regions while social distancing continued, there was evidence that Indigenous Australians were more likely to prefer in-person contact after the pandemic.

Systematic review of specialist selection methods with implications for diversity in the medical workforce.

PURPOSE: There is growing concern that inequities in methods of selection into medical specialties reduce specialist cohort diversity, particularly where measures designed for another purpose are adapted for specialist selection, prioritising reliability over validity. This review examined how empirical measures affect the diversity of specialist selection. The goals were to summarise the groups for which evidence is available, evaluate evidence that measures prioritising reliability over validity contribute to under-representation, and identify novel measures or processes that address under-representation, in order to make recommendations on selection into medical specialties and research required to support diversity. METHOD: In 2020-1, the authors implemented a comprehensive search strategy across 4 electronic databases (Medline, PsychINFO, Scopus, ERIC) covering years 2000-2020, supplemented with hand-search of key journals and reference lists from identified studies. Articles were screened using explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria designed to focus on empirical measures used in medical specialty selection decisions. RESULTS: Thirty-five articles were included from 1344 retrieved from databases and hand-searches. In order of prevalence these papers addressed the under-representation of women (21/35), international medical graduates (10/35), and race/ethnicity (9/35). Apart from well-powered studies of selection into general practice training in the UK, the literature was exploratory, retrospective, and relied upon convenience samples with limited follow-up. There was preliminary evidence that bias in the measures used for selection into training might contribute to under-representation of some groups. CONCLUSIONS: The review did not find convincing evidence that measures prioritising reliability drive under-representation of some groups in medical specialties, although this may be due to limited power analyses. In addition, the review did not identify novel specialist selection methods likely to improve diversity. Nevertheless, significant and divergent efforts are being made to promote the evolution of selection processes that draw on all the diverse qualities required for specialist practice serving diverse populations. More rigorous prospective research across different national frameworks will be needed to clarify whether eliminating or reducing the weighting of reliable pre-selection academic results in selection decisions will increase or decrease diversity, and whether drawing on a broader range of assessments can achieve both reliable and socially desirable outcomes.