Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examine how patient numerical ratings and specific words in written reviews of family physicians and internists in the states of California and Florida differ based upon concierge doctor status. Data are drawn from Healthgrades.com, one of the largest providers of online reviews, and a machine-learning sentiment analysis is used to determine the predictors of concierge status and numerical patient ratings. We find that reviews of concierge doctors are more likely to contain technical words associated with health care, such as "staff" and "office," compared with traditional physicians. In contrast, interpersonal bedside-manner words, like "listen" or "concerns," are most likely in reviews for nonconcierge doctors. We further determine that, whereas interpersonal words exhibit both positive and negative effects on numerical ratings, technical terms seem to primarily correlate negatively with patient scores for all doctors. The present work represents a first step towards understanding the measures of quality of care that relate with the patient experience, and in particular with respect to the growing field of concierge medicine. It is also the first attempt we are aware of that employs sentiment analysis in this context.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".