MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Poor communication by health care professionals may lead to life-threatening complications: examples from two case reports

2019· preprint· en· W2914076523 on OpenAlexaff
Abhishek Tiwary, Ajwani Rimal, Buddhi Paudyal, Keshav Raj Sigdel, Buddha Basnyat

Bibliographic record

VenueWellcome Open Research · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersWellcome TrustWellcome
KeywordsMedicineTuberculosisPrednisoloneRheumatoid arthritisIntensive care unitIntensive care medicineHealth careVomitingPediatricsSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report two cases which highlight the fact how poor communication leads to dangerously poor health outcome. We present the case of a 50-year-old woman recently diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis from Southern Nepal presented to Patan hospital with multiple episodes of vomiting and oral ulcers following the intake of methotrexate every day for 11 days, who was managed in the intensive care unit. Similarly, we present a 40-year-old man with ileo-caecal tuberculosis who was prescribed with anti-tubercular therapy (ATT) and prednisolone, who failed to take ATT due to poor communication and presented to Patan Hospital with features of disseminated tuberculosis following intake of 2 weeks of prednisolone alone. These were events that could have been easily prevented with proper communication skills. Improvement of communication between doctors and patients is paramount so that life-threatening events like these could be avoided.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0070.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.615
GPT teacher head0.593
Teacher spread0.023 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations148
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWellcome Open ResearchSame topicPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207