Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the wake of COVID-19, clinicians took to telehealth to continue providing services to their patients, mostly via telephone or videoconferencing technology. Telehealth has many promised and proven benefits including convenience to the patient, potentially less distraction from the electronic health record (EHR), saves in travel time and expenses, and lowering patients' wait time in the clinic. However, there could be some unintended negative consequences including increased clinician burnout due to screen fatigue, potential loss of information due to the limitations of the medium, difficulty discussing sensitive issues and impacts on patient-clinician relationship, empathy, and compassion. In this perspective, we discuss some of the positives and potential negatives of telehealth and highlight some considerations that could guide the choice of media. We submit that for telehealth to become a sustainable solution that is widely applied, it is important to take these issues into consideration in both research and implementation of telehealth solutions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.036 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.004 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".