The use of 3D digital anatomy model improves the communication with patients presenting with prostate disease: The first experience in Senegal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We hypothesized that the use of an interactive 3D digital anatomy model can improve the quality of communication with patients about prostate disease. METHODS: A 3D digital anatomy model of the prostate was created from an MRI scan, according to McNeal's zonal anatomy classification. During urological consultation, the physician presented the digital model on a computer and used it to explain the disease and available management options. The experience of patients and physicians was recorded in questionnaires. RESULTS: The main findings were as follows: 308 patients and 47 physicians participated in the study. In the patient group, 96.8% reported an improved level of understanding of prostate disease and 90.6% reported an improved ability to ask questions during consultation. Among the physicians, 91.5% reported improved communication skills and 100% reported an improved ability to obtain patient consent for subsequent treatment. At the same time, 76.6% of physicians noted that using the computer model lengthened the consultation. CONCLUSION: This exploratory study found that the use of a 3D digital anatomy model in urology consultations was received overwhelmingly favorably by both patients and physicians, and it was perceived to improve the quality of communication between patient and physician. A randomized study is needed to confirm the preliminary findings and further quantify the improvements in the quality of patient-physician communication.
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 | 0.000 | 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".