The Patient, the Physician, or the Relationship: Who or What Is “Difficult”, Exactly? an Approach for Managing Conflicts between Patients and Physicians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is the patient who consults, often at the last minute, the one you sigh over when you see his or her name on your list, the one who makes you feel powerless, and whom you would like to refer to a colleague. Every practicing physician has experienced being involved in a dialog of the deaf, with a patient refusing physicians' recommendations, in a therapeutic dead end. Faced with such patients, the physician tries to convey scientific evidence to untangle the situation. When it does not work, he looks for other arguments, raises his voice, and avoids looking the patient in the eyes. When he is out of resources, trying to sound professional, he uses a sentence such as "I understand and respect your beliefs, but I am telling you what I learned in medical school!". At the same time, his non-verbal behavior betrays more than a hint of irritation. Far from being caricatures, such situations generally result in the physician diagnosing or labeling the patient as "difficult." This label is affixed on more than one patient in ten, and for all sorts of reasons. How, then, do you re-establish a relationship of trust? Or, even better, how do you avoid such labeling?
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".