MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086273091 · doi:10.1016/j.nephro.2011.01.009

La communication médecin–malade en néphrologie

2011· article· fr· W2086273091 on OpenAlexaff
Serge Quérin, Marie‐José Clermont, C Dupré-Goudable, Pauline Dalmon

Bibliographic record

VenueNéphrologie & Thérapeutique · 2011
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth, Medicine and Society
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNephrologyDialysisMedicineTransplantationMedical educationPsychologyInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Former le futur néphrologue à la communication médecin–malade (CMM) a plus d’un objectif : orienter son interrogatoire en vue de poser un diagnostic, bien sûr, mais aussi l’aider à établir une relation durable, à renseigner et à motiver le patient, et le préparer à annoncer une mauvaise nouvelle et à accompagner le malade dans ses choix de fin de vie. La CMM repose sur des stratégies spécifiques et sur les fondements éthiques d’une rencontre humaine dont le succès s’exprime dans le soin. Une CMM efficace offre de nombreux bénéfices pour le patient, mais aussi pour le praticien. Parler de l’insuffisance rénale et de la dialyse, de la transplantation rénale, d’arrêt ou d’abstention thérapeutique : voilà quelques-uns des défis communicationnels qui attendent le futur néphrologue, le plus souvent auprès d’une clientèle qui a besoin d’un suivi à long terme. La CMM fait aussi appel à des habiletés spécifiques en néphrologie pédiatrique, où l’on doit composer tour à tour avec l’enfant, l’adolescent et les parents. Quelles que soient les aptitudes personnelles du futur néphrologue, la CMM est une compétence qui peut s’apprendre et s’améliorer, pour le bénéfice des patients, et pour celui du médecin. Training the nephrologist-to-be to physician–patient communication (PPC) has several objectives: to guide his/her history taking in order to make a diagnosis, of course, but also to help him/her establish a long-lasting relationship, inform and motivate the patient, and prepare him/her to break bad news and to deal with end-of-life issues. PPC rests on specific strategies and on the ethical grounds of a human encounter, the success of which expresses itself in care. An effective PPC offers many benefits to the patient, but also to the clinician. Talking about renal failure and dialysis, about kidney transplantation, and about withdrawing or not starting therapy: these are a few of the communicational challenges awaiting the nephrologist in training, mostly with patients requiring long-term follow-up. PPC also requires specific skills in the field of pediatric nephrology, where one deals alternately with children, adolescents and parents. Whatever the personal abilities of the nephrologist-to-be, PPC is a competency that can be learned and improved, for the benefit of the patient, and also of the physician.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.511
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0080.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.123
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNéphrologie & ThérapeutiqueSame topicHealth, Medicine and SocietyFrench-language works237,207