Visual Genome: Connecting language and vision using crowdsourced dense image annotations

Despite progress in perceptual tasks such as image classification, computers still perform poorly on cognitive tasks such as image description and question answering. Cognition is core to tasks that involve not just recognizing, but reasoning about our visual world. However, models used to tackle the rich content in images for cognitive tasks are still being trained using the same datasets designed for perceptual tasks. To achieve success at cognitive tasks, models need to understand the interactions and relationships between objects in an image. When asked “What vehicle is the person riding?”, computers will need to identify the objects in an image as well as the relationships riding(man, carriage) and pulling(horse, carriage) to answer correctly that “the person is riding a horse-drawn carriage.” In this paper, we present the Visual Genome dataset to enable the modeling of such relationships. We collect dense annotations of objects, attributes, and relationships within each image to learn these models. Specifically, our dataset contains over 108K images where each image has an average of (Formula presented.) objects, (Formula presented.) attributes, and (Formula presented.) pairwise relationships between objects. We canonicalize the objects, attributes, relationships, and noun phrases in region descriptions and questions answer pairs to WordNet synsets. Together, these annotations represent the densest and largest dataset of image descriptions, objects, attributes, relationships, and question answer pairs

Goals of Chronic Pain Management: Do Patients and Primary Care Physicians Agree and Does it Matter?

ObjectiveAssess patient-physician agreement on management goals for chronic musculoskeletal pain and its associations with patient and physician visit experiences.Materials and methodsPre-visit and post-visit questionnaires for 87 primary care visits that involved patients taking opioids for chronic musculoskeletal pain and primary care resident physicians. After each visit, patients and physicians independently ranked 5 pain treatment goals from most to least important.ResultsIn total, 48% of patients ranked reducing pain intensity as their top priority, whereas 22% ranked finding a diagnosis as most important. Physicians ranked improving function as the top priority for 41% of patients, and ranked reducing medication side effects as most important for 26%. The greatest difference between patient and physician rankings was for reducing pain intensity. In regression analyses, neither overall agreement on goals (ie, the physician's first or second priority included the patient's top priority) nor difference in patient versus physician ranking of pain intensity was significantly associated with patient-reported visit experience (β for overall agreement, -0.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.45 to 0.30; P=0.69; β for intensity, -0.06; 95% CI, -0.17 to 0.04; P=0.24) or physician-reported visit difficulty (β for overall agreement, 1.92; 95% CI, -2.70 to 6.55; P=0.41; β for intensity, 0.42; 95% CI, -0.87 to 1.71; P=0.53).DiscussionPatients and physicians prioritize substantially different goals for chronic pain management, but there is no evidence that agreement predicts patient experience or physician-reported visit difficulty. Primary care physicians may have adapted to new recommendations that emphasize functional goals and avoidance of long-term opioid therapy, whereas patients continue to focus on reducing pain intensity

Communication about chronic pain and opioids in primary care

Patients and physicians report that communication about chronic pain and opioids is often challenging, but there is little empirical research on whether patient-physician communication about pain affects patient and physician visit experience. This study video recorded 86 primary care visits involving 49 physicians and 86 patients taking long-term opioids for chronic musculoskeletal pain, systematically coded all pain-related utterances during these visits using a custom-designed coding system, and administered previsit and postvisit questionnaires. Multiple regression was used to identify communication behaviors and patient characteristics associated with patients' ratings of their visit experience, physicians' ratings of visit difficulty, or both. After adjusting for covariates, 2 communication variables-patient-physician disagreement and patient requests for opioid dose increases-were each significantly associated with both worse ratings of patient experience and greater physician-reported visit difficulty. Patient desire for increased pain medicine was also significantly positively associated with both worse ratings of patient experience and greater physician-reported visit difficulty. Greater pain severity and more patient questions were each significantly associated with greater physician-reported visit difficulty, but not with patient experience. The association between patient requests for opioids and patient experience ratings was wholly driven by 2 visits involving intense conflict with patients demanding opioids. Patient-physician communication during visits is associated with patient and physician ratings of visit experience. Training programs focused on imparting communication skills that assist physicians in negotiating disagreements about pain management, including responding to patient requests for more opioids, likely have potential to improve visit experience ratings for both patients and physicians

Patient Characteristics Associated with Making Requests during Primary Care Visits

BackgroundPatient requests for tests, treatments, or referrals occur frequently during primary care visits and pose challenges for clinicians to address, but little is known about patient characteristics that may predict requests.ObjectiveTo identify patient characteristics associated with a higher rate of patient requests during primary care visits.Design, setting, and sampleCross-sectional analyses of data from 1141 adult patients attending 1319 visits with 56 primary care physicians (including 45 resident and 11 faculty physicians) in an academic family medicine practice.MeasurementsPostvisit patient surveys including measures of patient requests for tests, prescriptions, and referrals; sociodemographics; mental and physical health status; symptom bother or worry (3-item scale; range, 3 to 15; Cronbach's α = 0.83); global life satisfaction; medical skepticism; and Five Factor Model personality traits.ResultsPatients made 1 or more requests in 867 visits (65.7%). In multivariate analyses of the within-visit request count, the following patient variables were statistically significantly associated with a higher rate of requests: age in years (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.01 [95% CI, 1.00 to 1.01]), increased symptom bother or worry (IRR, 1.06 [95% CI, 1.03 to 1.08]), a more extroverted personality (IRR, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.03 to 1.08]), greater life satisfaction (IRR, 1.01 [95% CI, 1.00 to 1.02]), and any prior encounter with the visit physician (IRR, 1.17 [95% CI, 1.04 to 1.32]).ConclusionsPrimary care physicians should expect a greater frequency of requests from older patients, patients with greater symptoms bother or worry, more extroverted patients, patients with greater global life satisfaction, and patients with whom they have had prior visits

Reliability of Physician-Level Measures of Patient Experience in Primary Care.

BackgroundPatient experience measures are widely used to compare performance at the individual physician level.ObjectiveTo assess the impact of unmeasured patient characteristics on visit-level patient experience measures and the sample sizes required to reliably measure patient experience at the primary care physician (PCP) level.DesignRepeated cross-sectional design.SettingAcademic family medicine practice in California.ParticipantsOne thousand one hundred forty-one adult patients attending 1319 visits with 56 PCPs (including 45 resident and 11 faculty physicians).MeasurementsPost-visit patient experience surveys including patient measures used for standard adjustment as recommend by the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Consortium and additional patient characteristics used for expanded adjustment (including attitudes toward healthcare, global life satisfaction, patient personality, current symptom bother, and marital status).ResultsThe amount of variance in patient experience explained doubled with expanded adjustment for patient characteristics compared with standard adjustment (R2 = 20.0% vs. 9.6%, respectively). With expanded adjustment, the amount of variance attributable to the PCP dropped from 6.1% to 3.4% and the required sample size to achieve a reliability of 0.90 in the physician-level patient experience measure increased from 138 to 255 patients per physician. After ranking of the 56 PCPs by average patient experience, 8 were reclassified into or out of the top or bottom quartiles of average experience with expanded as compared to standard adjustment [14.3% (95% CI: 7.0-25.2%)].ConclusionsWidely used methods for measuring PCP-level patient experience may not account sufficiently for influential patient characteristics. If methods were adapted to account for these characteristics, patient sample sizes for reliable between-physician comparisons may be too large for most practices to obtain

Impact of Prognostic Discussions on the Patient-Physician Relationship: Prospective Cohort Study.

Purpose Some research has suggested that discussion of prognosis can disrupt the patient-physician relationship. This study assessed whether physician discussion of prognosis is associated with detrimental changes in measures of the strength of the patient-physician relationship. Methods This was a longitudinal cohort study of 265 adult patients with advanced cancer who visited 38 oncologists within community- and hospital-based cancer clinics in Western New York and Northern California. Prognostic discussion was assessed by coding transcribed audio-recorded visits using the Prognostic and Treatment Choices (PTCC) scale and by patient survey at 3 months after the clinic visit. Changes in the strength of the patient-physician relationship were computed as differences in patient responses to The Human Connection and the Perceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions scales from baseline to 2 to 7 days and 3 months after the clinic visit. Results Prognostic discussion was not associated with a temporal decline in either measure. Indeed, a one-unit increase in PTCC during the audio-recorded visit was associated with improvement in The Human Connection scale at 2 to 7 days after the visit (parameter estimate, 0.10; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.23) and 3 months after the visit (parameter estimate, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.35) relative to baseline. Standardized effect sizes (SES) associated with an increase of two standard deviations in the PTCC at each time point were consistent with small beneficial effects (SES, 0.14 [95% CI, -0.02 to 0.29] at 2 to 7 days; SES, 0.24 [95% CI, 0.02 to 0.45] at 3 months), and lower bounds of CIs indicated that substantial detrimental effects of prognostic discussion were unlikely. Conclusion Prognostic discussion is not intrinsically harmful to the patient-physician relationship and may even strengthen the therapeutic alliance between patients and oncologists

Impact of Patient Requests on Provider-Perceived Visit Difficulty in Primary Care

Background"Difficult visits" are common in primary care and may contribute to primary care provider (PCP) career dissatisfaction and burnout. Patient requests occur in approximately half of primary care visits and may be a source of clinician-patient miscommunication or conflict, contributing to perceived visit difficulty.ObjectiveWe aimed to determine associations between types of patient requests and PCP-perceived visit difficulty.DesignThis was an observational study, nested in a multicenter randomized trial of depression engagement interventions.SubjectsWe included 824 patient visits within 135 PCP practices in Northern California occurring from June 2010 to March 2012.Main measuresPCP-perceived visit difficulty was quantified using a three-item scale (relative visit difficulty, amount of effort required, and amount of time required; Cronbach's α = 0.81). Using linear regression, the difficulty scale (score range 0-2 from least to most difficult) was modeled as a function of: patient requests for diagnostics tests, pain medications, and specialist referrals; PCP perception of likely depression or likely substance abuse; patient sociodemographics, comorbidity, depression; PCP characteristics and practice setting.ResultsPatients requested diagnostic tests, pain medications, and specialist referrals in 37.2, 20.0 and 30.0 % of visits, respectively. After adjustment for patient medical and psychiatric complexity, perceived difficulty was significantly higher when patients requested diagnostic tests [parameter estimate (PE) 0.11, (95 % CI: 0.03, 0.20)] but not when patients requested pain medications [PE -0.04 (95 % CI: -0.15, 0.08)] or referrals [PE 0.04 (95 % CI: -0.07, 0.25)].ConclusionsPCP-perceived visit difficulty is associated with patient requests for diagnostic tests, but not requests for pain medications or specialist referrals. In this era of "choosing wisely," PCPs may be challenged to respond to diagnostic test requests in an evidence-based manner, while maintaining the provider-patient relationship and PCP career satisfaction

Patients' Hopes for Advanced Cancer Treatment.

ContextLittle is known about the hopes patients with advanced (incurable) cancer have for their treatment.ObjectivesThe objective of this study was to describe the treatment hopes of advanced cancer patients, factors associated with expressing specific hopes, and the persons with whom hopes are discussed.MethodsWe surveyed 265 advanced cancer patients in the U.S. about their hopes for treatment at the baseline and after three months. We developed a taxonomy of hopes for treatment, which two investigators used to independently code patient responses. We explored associations between hopes for cure and patient covariates.ResultsWe developed eight categories of hopes. We were able to apply these codes reliably, and 95% of the patient's responses fit at least one hope category. The hope categories in order of descending baseline prevalence were as follows: quality of life, life extension, tumor stabilization, remission, milestone, unqualified cure, control not otherwise specified, and cure tempered by realism. Most patients reported discussing hopes with partners, family/friends, and oncologists; a minority reported discussing hopes with nurses, primary care physicians, clergy, or support groups. In logistic regression analysis, unqualified hopes for cure were more likely in younger patients and in those who did not endorse discussing their hopes with primary care physicians.ConclusionAdvanced cancer patients harbor a range of treatment hopes. These hopes often are not discussed with key members of the health care team. Younger age and lack of discussion of hopes with primary care physicians may lead to less realistic hopes for cure