Comparison of Patient-Physician Interaction (PPI) Evaluation between Different Grade Medical Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: A proper patient-physician interaction (PPI) creates rapport between doctors and patients and improves medical outcomes. The importance of PPI evaluation items was evaluated in each medical student in grades 3 and 4, before and after their clinical clerkship. METHODS: Six PPI evaluation guidelines (SEGUE, Kalamazoo Consensus, Calgary-Cambridge Guide, Macy guideline, 2 Korean Consortium guidelines) were selected and importance of each guideline was evaluated through the structured questionnaire in 73 pre-clinical clerkship (3rd-grade) and 78 post-clinical clerkship (4th-grade) medical students. RESULTS: The importance of medical communication items among total clinical performance, students-rated PPI portion was 21+/-9.7%. In SEGUE recommendations, 'Elicit information' was evaluated to be most important items before (58.3%) and after (65.8%) clinical clerkship. In Kalamazoo Consensus, 'Gathering information' was evaluated to be most important (49.3%/42.3%), same as in Calgary-Cambridge Guide (52.1%/56.4%) and Daegu Gyeongbuk Consortium (47.9%/43.6%). In the Macy guideline, 'Listening' was evaluated to be most important (28.8%/33.3%). In the Seoul Gyeonggi Consortium, 'Buidling relationships' was evaluated to be most important (23.3%/28.2%). CONCLUSION: In the 4th-grade post-clerkship medical students after clinical clerkship, importance of 'Gathering information' was evaluated to be less important, however, 'Giving information' and 'Understanding the patient perspective' was evaluated to be more important, compared to pre-clerkship students 3rd-grade students.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".