MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3011623641 · doi:10.1016/j.jcjo.2020.01.014

Beyond burnout: looking deeply into physician distress

2020· review· en· W3011623641 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Agnes Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Ophthalmology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBurnoutDistressPersonal distressInterpersonal communicationAltruism (biology)PsychologyInterpersonal relationshipNursingMedicineSocial psychologyPsychotherapistClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Physician wellness is an important issue and a growing concern within the medical profession. Although "burnout" is a commonly used term to describe physician distress, it fails to capture the many aspects of medicine that negatively impact physician wellness and what physicians experience. In this article, I will explore the personal (unhealthy perfectionism, pathologic altruism, self-recrimination, and the pitfalls of success), interpersonal (empathic distress, moral suffering, bullying, and marginalization), and systemic (medical culture, workplace environment and burnout, and health care system) factors that act interdependently and synergistically to give rise to physician distress. This article is a call for an earnest discussion and for implementing changes by addressing and reconsidering the place of physician wellness in medical practice, education, and research on the one hand, and its impact on patients, families, and society on the other.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.363 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations78
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of OphthalmologySame topicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnoutFrench-language works237,207