Evaluation of Patient Satisfaction With Tailored Online Patient Education Information
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
Patients are using the Internet for access to standardized health information in ever-growing numbers. Although increased access to health information can be helpful, the quality of information varies widely. All too often, the information retrieved is incomplete, inaccurate, or inappropriate. An interdisciplinary team of clinicians, librarians, software engineers, and multimedia designers developed an online patient education system that enables clinicians to "prescribe" tailored, evidence-based health information. The system provides access to text and video that patients can adapt for language, vision, and hearing preferences. Usability testing was conducted with eight patients in a usability laboratory using the "think-aloud" method, surveys, and interviews. Results indicated that patients were highly satisfied and that the site has the potential to become a valuable resource in disease management. Patients made several recommendations regarding system appearance, function, and content that will have application for other groups developing online patient education systems.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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