Informed decision-making in elective major vascular surgery: analysis of 145 surgeon–patient consultations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prior studies show significant gaps in the informed decision-making process, a central goal of surgical care. These studies have been limited by their focus on low-risk decisions, single visits rather than entire consultations, or both. Our objectives were, first, to rate informed decision-making for major elective vascular surgery based on audiotapes of actual physician-patient conversations and, second, to compare ratings of informed decision-making for first visits to ratings for multiple visits by the same patient over time. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled patients for whom vascular surgical treatment was a potential option at a tertiary care outpatient vascular surgery clinic. We audio-taped all surgeon-patient conversations, including multiple visits when necessary, until a decision was made. Using an existing method, we evaluated the transcripts for elements of decision-making, including basic elements (e.g., an explanation of the clinical condition), intermediate elements (e.g., risks and benefits) and complex elements (e.g., uncertainty around the decision). RESULTS: We analyzed 145 surgeon-patient consultations. Overall, 45% of consultations contained complex elements, whereas 23% did not contain the basic elements of decision-making. For the 67 consultations that involved multiple visits, ratings were significantly higher when evaluating all visits (50% complex elements) compared with evaluating only the first visit (33% complex elements, p < 0.001.) CONCLUSION: We found that 45% of consultations contained complex elements, which is higher than prior studies with similar methods. Analyzing decision-making over multiple visits yielded different results than analyzing decision-making for single visits.
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 | 0.007 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".