Psychosocial correlates of patient-physician discordance in inflammatory bowel disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify the independent psychosocial correlates of patient-physician discordance in adult outpatients with inflammatory bowel disease. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted in three university-affiliated tertiary care settings. Psychological distress, social support, perceived stress, and negative life events were assessed, as were demographic, lifestyle, and clinical characteristics. Patient-physician discordance was assessed with 10-item questionnaires. RESULTS: Ten gastroenterologists and 200 of their patients participated. Patients and their physicians disagreed most on discussion of personal issues. Patients with Crohn's disease had statistically significantly higher discordance on disease activity and physical limitation, as well as higher average overall discordance scores than patients with ulcerative colitis. Mean discordance levels were similar across different physicians. Higher psychological distress and more perceived stress were independently associated with higher discordance after controlling for Crohn's disease, active disease, being with the treating physician for less than 1 yr, and recommendation for further medical investigation. Psychological distress was the most important correlate of overall discordance. CONCLUSIONS: Increased physician awareness that psychologically distressed patients have difficulty processing of clinically relevant information may lead to improved doctor-patient communication during an office visit.
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 | 0.001 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".