What Makes a Good Doctor Response? An Analysis on a Romanian Telemedicine Platform
Adrian Cosma, Cosmin Dumitrache, Emilian Radoi
No strong AI-core implementation/artifact signals were detected from current providers.
Text-based telemedicine has become a common mode of care, requiring clinicians to deliver medical advice clearly and effectively in writing. As platforms increasingly rely on patient ratings and feedback, clinicians face growing pressure to maintain satisfaction scores, even though these evaluations often reflect communication quality more than clinical accuracy. We analyse patient satisfaction signals in Romanian te ...
xt-based telemedicine. Using a sample of 77,334 anonymised patient question--doctor response pairs, we model feedback as a binary outcome, treating thumbs-up responses as positive and grouping negative or absent feedback into the other class. We extract interpretable, predominantly language-agnostic features (e.g., length, structural characteristics, readability proxies), along with Romanian LIWC psycholinguistic features and politeness/hedging markers where available. We train a classifier with a time-based split and perform SHAP-based analyses, which indicate that patient and clinician history features dominate prediction, functioning as strong priors, while characteristics of the response text provide a smaller but, crucially, actionable signal. In subgroup correlation analyses, politeness and hedging are consistently positively associated with patient feedback, whereas lexical diversity shows a negative association.
Results & Benchmarks
No concrete benchmark grounding is available yet. Treat the page as context or an implementation starting point only.
Text-based telemedicine has become a common mode of care, requiring clinicians to deliver medical advice clearly and effectively in writing.
Implementation Evidence Summary
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
Reproduction Risks
- Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow
Hardware Notes
Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Evidence disclosure
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 60/100, grounding 58/100, status medium.
Implementation Status
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
- No direct maintained implementation was found. Use the paper PDF and citation graph to design a baseline reproduction.
- Track assumptions and missing details in an experiment log before coding.
Reproduction readiness
Hardware requirements
- Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
No verified implementation available
- · No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.
No benchmark numbers could be verified. You will not be able to validate reproduction correctness against published numbers.
Hugging Face artifacts
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet.
Continue with targeted Hugging Face searches derived from the paper title and method context:
Tip: start with models, then check datasets/spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Direct artifact matches are currently sparse. Use targeted Hugging Face searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Research context
Evaluation & Human Feedback Data
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXNeed human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.