End-of-life experience of children undergoing stem cell transplantation for malignancy: parent and provider perspectives and patterns of care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The end-of-life (EOL) experience of children who undergo stem cell transplantation (SCT) may differ from that of other children with cancer. To evaluate perspectives and patterns of EOL care after SCT, we surveyed 141 parents of children who died of cancer (response rate, 64%) and their physicians. Chart review provided additional information. Children for whom SCT was the last cancer therapy (n = 31) were compared with those for whom it was not (n = 110). SCT parents and physicians recognized no realistic chance for cure later than non-SCT peers (both P < .001) and were more likely to have a primary goal of cure at death (parents, P < .001; physicians, P = .02). SCT children were more likely to suffer highly from their last cancer therapy and die in the intensive care unit (both P < .001), with less opportunity for EOL preparation. SCT parents who recognized no realistic chance for cure more than 7 days before death along with the physician were more likely to prepare for EOL, and if their primary goal was to reduce suffering, to achieve this (P < .001). SCT is associated with significant suffering and less opportunity to prepare for EOL. Children and families undergoing SCT may benefit from ongoing discussions regarding prognosis, goals, and opportunities to maximize quality of life.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".