MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W114025638 · doi:10.1177/082585970201800105

Antibiotic Use in the Last Week of Life in Three Different Palliative Care Settings

2002· article· en· W114025638 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Palliative Care · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsCanadian Hospice Palliative Care Association
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePalliative careAntibioticsTertiary careAcute careEnd-of-life careIntensive care medicineEmergency medicineNursingHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to examine the frequency and types of antibiotics prescribed in the last week of life in three different palliative care settings, including an acute care hospital, tertiary palliative care unit, and three hospice units. A total of 150 consecutive patients were evaluated, 50 in each of the three settings. Twenty-nine patients (58%) in the acute hospital setting, 26 (52%) in the tertiary palliative care unit, and 11(22%) in the hospice settings were prescribed antibiotics. In the acute care and tertiary palliative care settings, the most frequent route of antibiotic administration was intravenous and, in the hospice setting, oral. We conclude that there is marked variability in the numbers and types of antibiotics prescribed in these different palliative care settings in the last week of life. The high use of intravenous antibiotics and the large number of patients who were still receiving antibiotics at the time of death indicate the need for further prospective studies.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.814

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.152
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.221 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it