End‐Of‐Life Care for Persons with Advanced Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Report of a National Interdisciplinary Consensus Meeting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While systemic shortcomings in meeting the needs of individuals with progressive chronic illnesses at the end of life have been well documented, there is growing interest in improving both care and quality of life for persons with advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). For instance, the American Thoracic Society has issued an official statement on palliative care for patients with respiratory diseases, affirming that the prevention, relief, reduction and soothing of symptoms "without affecting a cure" must become an integral component of standard care. A recent Medline search located 1015 articles related to palliative or end-of life care for people with COPD published between 2001 and 2008, compared with only 336 articles published before 2001. To address the needs of Canadian patients, an interdisciplinary consensus meeting, funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and supported by the Canadian Thoracic Society, the Canadian Respiratory Health Professionals and the Canadian Lung Association was convened in Toronto, Ontario, on November 22, 2008, to begin examining the quality of end-of-life care for individuals with COPD in Canada. The present report summarizes the background to and outcomes of this consensus meeting.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.089 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".