Patient Relationships and the Personal Physician in Tomorrow's Health System: A Perspective from the Keystone IV Conference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A group of senior leaders from the early generation of academic family medicine reflect on the meaning of being a personal physician, based on their own clinical experiences and as teachers of residents and students in academic health centers. Recognizing that changes in clinical care and education at national and local systems levels have added extraordinary demands to the role of the personal physician, the senior group offers examples of how the discipline might go forward in changing times. Differently organized care such as the Family Health Team model in Ontario, Canada; value-based payment for populations in large health systems; and federal changes in reimbursement for populations can have positive effects on physician satisfaction. These changes and examples of changes in medical student and residency education also have the potential to positively affect the primary care workforce. The authors conclude that, without substantive educational and health system reform, the ability to truly serve as a personal physician and adhere to the values of continuity, responsibility, and accountability will continue to be threatened.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".