Bibliographic record
Abstract
seminal words of the great Canadian physician Sir William Osler (1849-1919) are as pertinent today as they were in the 20th century: The Good Physician Treats the Disease; Great Physician Treats the Patient Who Has the Disease . This phrase be interpreted in many ways but to most of us it reflects the holistic approach to medicine described by Hippocrates, Plato, and the 12th-century physician/philosopher Maimonides among others.Since most of us believe that the body and mind are intimately connected, it seems obvious that physical disease always has a mental dimension. In other words, physical illness is often accompanied by anxiety, depression, and other nonphysical symptoms. If this is accepted, then the question posed is can we influence the quality of life of patients? Quality of Life (QoL) is an elusive concept and has a different meaning according to the setting in which it is used. For the purposes of this article, we will consider QoL as the ability of patients with a serious illness to minimize the stress, anxiety, and depression associated with their illness together with the possibility of death.Many observers, researchers, and healthcare workers believe we and the credit for opening up this debate goes to [Ulrich (1984)]. However, many studies into the effect of environment or interventions on patient care contain relatively few subjects, are not randomized, and make claims that are not always supported by the data.In 2002, the hospital (St. James' Hospital, Dublin) built a new 21-bed stem cell transplant unit. All patients were treated in single en suite rooms with an air-lock entrance and high-efficiency particulate air filtration to minimize the risk of infection. use of wall-mounted pictures and flowers was disallowed also to minimize infection risk. As I was in charge of the unit, I was very pleased with my state-of-the-art facility but gradually I began to notice that patients were becoming depressed by the lack of visual stimulation. final manifestation of this was a request from a patient to place a flower pot outside her window. I suggested that she should write to the chief executive officer of the hospital, as he was much more likely to accede to her request than if I made it! Following this, I spent a number of years trying to find a way of stimulating patients by changing their environment. I eventually met an artist, Denis Roche, who came up with the idea of a virtual window in patients' rooms. I knew that medical colleagues and others would be skeptical, so I obtained funding from the Irish Cancer Society to conduct a large prospective randomized study to measure the psychological effect of Open Window on patients. …
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 | 0.021 | 0.100 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".