MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097476029 · doi:10.3399/bjgp15x684085

Yonder: Medically unexplained symptoms, dysmenorrhoea, mental health stigma, and YouTube

2015· article· en· W2097476029 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ahmed Rashid

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of General Practice · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMenstrual Health and Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStigma (botany)Quality of life (healthcare)Mental healthPopulationPsychiatryQualitative researchAlternative medicineSocial stigmaExperiential learningExperiential knowledgeNursingFamily medicinePsychologyHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Pathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

MUS. ‘Medically unexplained symptoms’ can be an uncomfortable and challenging diagnostic label for doctors and patients alike. It represents some of the most technically difficult and yet rewarding aspects of being a GP, such as dealing with uncertainty and taking a holistic, person-centred approach. In a Qualitative Health Research study, Canadian researchers sought to explore the experiences of individuals who had fallen into the umbrella of this diagnostic label. 1 They identified three experiential stages: searching for a diagnosis, living with uncertain symptoms, and finally, acceptance of their condition. Importantly, in light of the current strain on general practice in the NHS, the emphasis placed on the importance of relationship-based care is highly relevant and the challenge to maintain continuity seems to be particularly important for this population. Dysmenorrhoea. This can be a debilitating condition for many women with the potential to significantly reduce quality of life as well as lead to absence from education and employment. Having identified an absence of patient-reported outcome measures in dysmenorrhoea, a group of researchers recently sought to develop a new measure that could be used in clinical trials. 2

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.461
Threshold uncertainty score0.625

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.313 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of General PracticeSame topicMenstrual Health and DisordersFrench-language works237,207