MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2332424212 · doi:10.1097/acm.0b013e3182613f48

Physicianship Amongst Physicians-in-Training

2012· article· en· W2332424212 sur OpenAlexaff
Jacques Balayla

Notice bibliographique

RevueAcademic Medicine · 2012
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueInnovations in Medical Education
Établissements canadiensUniversité de Montréal
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésConversationHumanismMedical educationPsychologyMedicinePhilosophyCommunication

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

As medical students, we are taught to consider the patient, not simply the diagnosis. This concept, known as physicianship, encourages us to validate and dignify the lives of our patients while empathically looking for pertinent clues and findings to diagnose their condition. Despite its inherent humanism, we often hesitate to practice physicianship because, in our clinical experiences, carrying on a conversation with a patient does not extend far beyond the science of his or her condition. During medical school, an encounter with a patient, Mr. O, led me to realize that the distinction between science and physicianship is not always clear and that, in medicine, the two often overlap. On an otherwise typical Tuesday afternoon in the clinic, I was assigned to see the last patient of the day, Mr. O. As usual, I entered the exam room and said hello. Mr. O was a 78-year-old gentleman who appeared quite healthy upon my initial exam. I spent the next 30 minutes completing my duties as a medical student—taking a history, checking his vital signs. During this time, I did most of the talking. I learned that, since his last visit, Mr. O had achieved his weight loss goal and had regained full range of motion in his previously injured knee. Despite the good news, I recognized that Mr. O still was dissatisfied. I doubted that his dissatisfaction was with me or with our recent interaction. Instead, I sensed that he was looking for someone simply to listen to him. Was it possible that not one of his doctors had taken the time recently to listen to what he had to say if what he had to say wasn’t the answer to a question on his chart? Because I had extra time before my supervisor would be ready to review Mr. O’s case with me, I decided to spend that time with Mr. O in the hopes of remedying his apparent loneliness in addition to his physical ailments. I started with the question “What do you like to do for fun?” Out of nothing, something remarkable evolved. For the next half hour, Mr. O did all of the talking. Uncontrollably, he spoke, yelled, cried, and laughed, ridding himself of some of the pain that he had carried for so many years. Slowly, he slid his hand into his pocket and retrieved the list of his prescriptions. He stared intently at the name tag that hung from my white coat and began to write my name on the same piece of paper. He hugged me and politely asked, “Can I add you to my list of medications?” If I ever doubted the merits of physicianship, Mr. O reinforced them in a way that I will never forget. That day, I thanked God not for my voice or for my name but for having blessed me with the ability to listen. I learned how simple caring for patients could be—just be there to listen to them. As medical students, we may not be licensed to write prescriptions yet, but our white coats are, more often than not, the safest, most powerful medication that our patients need. Author’s Note: The name in this essay has been changed to protect the identity of the patient.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,010
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,092
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,309

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0100,035
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0020,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0100,004
Communication savante0,0080,006
Science ouverte0,0010,014
Intégrité de la recherche0,0060,008
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0920,017

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,069
Tête enseignante GPT0,382
Écart entre enseignants0,313 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2012
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAcademic Medicine→Même sujetInnovations in Medical Education→Travaux en français237 207→