ScholarWorksIndianapolis
  • Communities & Collections
  • Browse ScholarWorks
  • English
  • Català
  • Čeština
  • Deutsch
  • Español
  • Français
  • Gàidhlig
  • Italiano
  • Latviešu
  • Magyar
  • Nederlands
  • Polski
  • Português
  • Português do Brasil
  • Suomi
  • Svenska
  • Türkçe
  • Tiếng Việt
  • Қазақ
  • বাংলা
  • हिंदी
  • Ελληνικά
  • Yкраї́нська
  • Log In
    or
    New user? Click here to register.Have you forgotten your password?
  1. Home
  2. Browse by Subject

Browsing by Subject "prognostication"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
  • Loading...
    Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Physician self-reported use of empathy during clinical practice
    (Sage, 2022) Comer, Amber; Fettig, Lyle; Bartlett, Stephanie; D'Cruz, Lynn; Umythachuk, Nina; Health Sciences, School of Health and Human Sciences
    Objectives The use of empathy during clinical practice is paramount to delivering quality patient care and is important for understanding patient concerns at both the cognitive and affective levels. This study sought to determine how and when physicians self-report the use of empathy when interacting with their patients. Methods A cross-sectional survey of 76 physicians working in a large urban hospital was conducted in August of 2017. Physicians were asked a series of questions with Likert scale responses as well as asked to respond to open-ended questions. Results All physicians self-report that they always (69%) or usually (29.3%) use empathic statements when engaging with patients. 93.1% of physicians believe that their colleagues always (20.7%) or usually (69%) use empathic statements when communicating with patients. Nearly one-third of physicians (33%) indicated that using the words “I understand” denotes an empathic statement. Although 36% of physicians reported that they would like to receive more training or assistance about how and when to use empathy during clinical practice. Significance of Results Despite the self-reported prevalent use of empathic statements, one-third of physicians indicate a desire for more training in what empathy means and when it should be used in a clinical setting. Additionally, nearly one-third of physicians in this study reported using responses that patients may not perceive as being empathic, even when intended to be empathic. This suggests that many physicians feel uncertain about a clinical skill they believe should be used in most, if not all, encounters.
  • Loading...
    Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Validation of a 40-Gene Expression Profile Test to Predict Metastatic Risk in Localized High-Risk Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma
    (Elsevier, 2020) Wysong, Ashley; Newman, Jason G.; Covington, Kyle R.; Kurley, Sarah J.; Ibrahim, Sherrif F.; Farberg, Aaron S.; Bar, Anna; Cleaver, Nathan J.; Somani, Ally-Khan; Panther, David; Brodland, David G.; Zitelli, John; Toyohara, Jennifer; Maher, Ian A.; Xia, Yang; Bibee, Kristin; Griego, Robert; Rigel, Darrell S.; Plasseraud, Kristen Meldi; Estrada, Sarah; Sholl, Lauren Meldi; Johnson, Clare; Cook, Robert W.; Schmults, Chrysalyne D.; Arron, Sarah T.; Dermatology, School of Medicine
    Background: Current staging systems for cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) have limited positive predictive value (PPV) for identifying patients who will experience metastasis. Objective: To develop and validate a gene expression profile (GEP) test for predicting risk for metastasis in localized, high-risk cSCC with the goal of improving risk-directed patient management. Methods: Archival formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded primary cSCC tissue and clinicopathologic data (n=586) were collected from 23 independent centers in a prospectively designed study. A GEP signature was developed using a discovery cohort (n=202) and validated in a separate, non-overlaping, independent cohort (n=324). Results: A prognostic, 40-gene expression profile (40-GEP) test was developed and validated, stratifying high-risk cSCC patients into classes based on metastasis risk: Class 1 (low-risk), Class 2A (high-risk), and Class 2B (highest-risk). For the validation cohort, 3-year metastasis-free survival (MFS) rates were 91.4%, 80.6%, and 44.0%, respectively. A PPV of 60% was achieved for the highest-risk group (Class 2B), an improvement over staging systems; while negative predictive value, sensitivity, and specificity were comparable to staging systems. Limitations: Potential understaging of cases could affect metastasis rate accuracy.Conclusion: The 40-GEP test is an independent predictor of metastatic risk that can complement current staging systems for patients with high-risk cSCC.
About IU Indianapolis ScholarWorks
  • Accessibility
  • Privacy Notice
  • Copyright © 2025 The Trustees of Indiana University