Framework for Continuous Palliative Sedation Therapy in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Canada does not have a standardized ethical and practice framework for continuous palliative sedation therapy (CPST). Although a number of institutional and regional guidelines exist, Canadian practice varies. Given the lack of international and national consensus on CPST, the Canadian Society for Palliative Care Physicians (CSPCP) formed a special task force to develop a consensus-based framework for CPST. OBJECTIVE: Through a preliminary review of sedation practices nationally and internationally, it was determined that although considerable consensus was emerging on this topic, there remained both areas of contention and a lack of credible scientific evidence to support a definitive clinical practice guideline. This led to the creation of a framework to help guide policy, practice, and research. METHODS: This framework was developed through the following steps: 1) literature review; 2) identification of issues; 3) preparation of a draft framework; 4) expert consultation and revision; 5) presentation at conferences and further revision; and 6) further revision and national consensus building. RESULTS: A thorough literature review, including gray literature, of sedation therapy at the end of life was conducted from which an initial framework was drafted. This document was reviewed by 30 multidisciplinary experts in Canada and internationally, revised several times, and then submitted to CSPCP members for review. Consensus was high on most parts of the framework. CONCLUSION: The framework for CPST will provide a basis for the development of safe, effective, and ethical use of CPST for patients in palliative care and at the end 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 | 0.062 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".