Realizing the potential of real-time clinical collaboration in maternal–fetal and obstetric medicine through WhatsApp
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to explore the potential of using instant messaging to enhance patient-care and physician-education in obstetric medicine and maternal-fetal medicine. METHODS: This retrospective study examined real-time correspondence between a closed group of maternal-fetal medicine physicians and fellows-in-training. Correspondence was grouped into four domains. Time to obtain a response and their utility was analysed. RESULTS: Over the two-year period, 41 international members contributed 534 clinically relevant messages (291 stems and 243 responses). Of these, 33% were advice seeking, 23.4% case-sharing, 35% educational content and 8.2% miscellaneous content. The median response time was 52 min, and 53% responded in less than 60 min. At least one response in each case influenced clinical management. CONCLUSION: Instant messaging is effective for real-time clinical collaboration and could serve as an important platform for enhancing management and continuing education for obstetric medicine and maternal-fetal medicine physicians. International societies should consider exploring this avenue further.
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.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it