French lay Persons’ judgments of the possibility of a heart attack when experiencing various physical manifestations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The aim of the study was to characterize the different ways in which, based on certain physical manifestations that an individual suddenly experiences, people judge the possibility that these manifestations indicate the onset of a heart attack. Methods: One hundred ninety-four French adults--plus six physicians--were presented with a set of realistic vignettes composed by orthogonally crossing the levels of four factors: the type of pain felt, and the presence or absence of nausea, excess sweating, and of difficulty breathing. Results: Four qualitatively different reactions were found among the lay people. The majority reaction (54%) was close to the physicians' reaction. It consisted of suspecting a heart attack as soon as intense pain occurs in the chest or back. The second reaction (25%) retained from the first one only the idea that a heart attack should be suspected if the pain is localized to the chest. The third reaction (14%) reflected some people's uncertainty in the face of disturbing manifestations that they find difficult to interpret. The fourth reaction (7%) was that no set of symptoms could mean, for them, the onset of a heart attack. Conclusion: Only about half of the participants appeared to be able to consider unpleasant physical manifestations as a whole and integrate that information into an overall warning judgment that can lead into prompt life-saving actions. We recommend that judgment training on warning symptoms and signs be performed, especially for high-risk patients, in the offices of primary care providers and specialists.
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 | 0.000 | 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".