Clinically Relevant Correlates of Accurate Perception of Patients’ Thoughts and Feelings
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal was to explore the clinical relevance of accurate understanding of patients' thoughts and feelings. Between 2010 and 2012, four groups of participants (nursing students, medical students, internal medicine residents, and undergraduate students) took a test of accuracy in understanding the thoughts and feelings of patients who were videorecorded during their actual medical visits and who afterward reviewed their video to identify their thoughts and feelings as they occurred (Test of Accurate Perception of Patients' Affect, or TAPPA). Participants' accuracy scores were then correlated with participants' attitudes toward patient-centered care, clinical course background, recall of clinical conversation, evaluations of clinical performance made by preceptors, evaluations of interpersonal skill made by standardized patients in clinical encounters, and independent coding of behavior in a clinical encounter. Accuracy in understanding patients' thoughts and feelings was significantly correlated with nursing students' clinical course experience, clinicians' favorable attitudes to psychosocial discussion, standardized patients' evaluations of medical students' interpersonal skill, independent coding of medical students' patient-centered behavior while taking a social history, and undergraduates' more accurate recall of what an actor-physician said on video. Accuracy in perceiving patients' thoughts and feelings can be objectively measured and is a skill relevant to clinical performance.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it