An evaluation of telehealth in the provision of rheumatologic consults to a remote area.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of providing telehealth consultations in rheumatology. METHODS: A prospective review of new consults from a rural area assessed by a rheumatologist in an urban area using telehealth. Patient demographics were recorded along with a self-administered questionnaire reporting assessment of the acceptability of the process. Referring physician and consultant provided open ended feedback as to relative strengths and weaknesses of telehealth versus traditional consult. A simple cost and time benefit analysis was undertaken. RESULTS: The spectrum of patients with rheumatic disease assessed was similar to a traditional consultation clinic. Patients found the overall process to be acceptable and effective. Apart from accessibility to specialist consultation, the greatest benefit was improved communication among patient, referring physician, and consultant. The process was determined to be efficient in both time and cost savings. CONCLUSION: Telehealth rheumatology consultations are feasible, acceptable, and cost/time effective and are therefore advocated for those geographic areas where traditional consultations are not readily available.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".