Observational studyScientific reports2026
Identification of perception gaps between physicians and patients with neurological diseases and the prediction of these gaps using machine learning.
Observational study in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Understanding perception and communication gaps between patients with neurological diseases and their treating physicians is essential for optimizing patient-centered care. The GAP-AI study aimed to identify these gaps in a cohort of patients with Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, or epilepsy. This single-center observational study involved patients (N = 197) and their treating physicians (N = 12) answering questionnaires (18-item Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire Short Form, 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire for patients and physicians, Barthel Index, and 36-item Short Form subdomains) over two clinic visits. The primary outcome was the difference between pairwise items in the questionnaires (perception gap). Perception gaps, albeit minimal, were identified for patient satisfaction, shared decision-making, activities of daily living, and quality of life. Attributes that significantly influenced perception gaps included physician's age, years of experience/holding a neurologist qualification, disease area, and the number of patients treated, with experienced physicians tending to provide more rigorous evaluations than their patients' self-assessments. Multiple machine learning algorithms were used to develop predictive models based on study data. The k-nearest neighbors algorithm demonstrated the best performance in predicting a patient-physician perception gap. Insights from our study highlight the potential to recognize, predict, and ultimately address these gaps, thus enhancing clinical practice by increasing the level of understanding between patients and their physicians.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.