The relevance of positive approaches to health for patient-centered care medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the last centuries, the field of medicine has evolved from a disease-oriented model where individuals were seen as simple hosts for diseases, to a patient-centered approach where health professionals actively try to engage their patients in treatment decision-making. This deep change in models of care acknowledges that patients are important actors in health fulfillment. Even though this change in models of care was a major step forward for medical practices and treatment success, patient-centered care medicine (PCCM) has brought its own limitations. In this brief comment, the concept of PCCM will be defined and the benefits of this model of care will be highlighted. The limitations inherent to PCCM will also be summarized. A discussion on how PCCM can move forward will be undertaken using evidence-based knowledge on positive approaches to health. Finally, an encompassing perspective (i.e. the salutogenic perspective) will il lustrate how the PCCM model of care can help to operationalize major health conceptual frameworks worldwide.
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 | 0.049 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.105 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".