Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recent emphasis of including patient reports in their own care management is reviewed in terms of the factors that contributed to its popularity. The role change of patients as being active participants in their own care as a result of the rising consumerism and advocacy has led to increased pressures for including patients in the therapeutic decision-making process. As consumers of clinical services, their perspectives and attitudes towards health and illness acquired more importance. The rising cost of healthcare has added another dimension in cost containment by empowering patients and sharing responsibility in their recovery, which hopefully can improve outcomes. Challenges in the development and implementation of patient-reported outcomes in psychiatry are reviewed and include the still unresolved subjective/objective dichotomy, identification of the most appropriate and relevant patient-reported outcomes. Few outcomes are identified and include: subjective tolerability of medication, self-reported health-related quality of life, preferences, patients' attitudes towards health and illness, satisfaction with medication and overall satisfaction of quality of care, and functional state, with particular focus on social functioning.
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 | 0.021 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.028 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
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".