Bibliographic record
Abstract
ⅷ Objective To investigate what triggers clinicians' requests for ethics consultations.ⅷ DesignCross-sectional telephone survey.ⅷ Setting and participants Randomly selected physicians throughout the United States who practice in internal medicine, oncology, and critical care.ⅷ Main measurements Sociodemographic characteristics, training in medicine and ethics, and practice characteristics; types of ethical problems that prompt requests for consultation, and factors triggering consultation requests.ⅷ Results Of 344 responding physicians, 190 (55.2%) reported requesting ethics consultations.Most commonly these were for ethical dilemmas related to end-of-life decision making, patient autonomy issues, and conflict.The most common triggers that led to consultation requests were wanting help resolving a conflict; wanting assistance with interactions with a difficult family, patient, or surrogate; wanting help with making a decision or planning care; and emotional triggers.Physicians who were ethnically in the minority, practiced in communities under 500,000 population, or who were trained in the United States were more likely to request consultations to resolve conflict.ⅷ Conclusions Conflicts and other emotionally charged concerns more commonly trigger consultation requests than other cognitively based concerns.When consulting, ethicists need to be prepared to mediate conflicts and handle sometimes difficult emotional situations.The data suggest that ethics consultants might serve clinicians well by consulting on a more proactive basis to avoid conflicts and by educating clinicians to develop mediation skills.
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 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 | 0.026 | 0.093 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".