More Text Please! Understanding and Supporting the Use of Visualization for Clinical Text Overview
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
Clinical practice is heavily reliant on the use of unstructured text to document patient stories due to its expressive and flexible nature. However, a physician's capacity to recover information from text for clinical overview is severely affected when records get longer and time pressure increases. Data visualization strategies have been explored to aid in information retrieval by replacing text with graphical summaries, though often at the cost of omitting important text features. This causes physician mistrust and limits real-world adoption. This work presents our investigation into the role and use of text in clinical practice, and reports on efforts to assess the best of both worlds---text and visualization---to facilitate clinical overview. We report on insights garnered from a field study, and the lessons learned from an iterative design process and evaluation of a text-visualization prototype, MedStory, with 14 medical professionals. The results led to a number of grounded design recommendations to guide visualization design to support clinical text overview.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it