MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980533867 · doi:10.1111/jgs.13255

End‐of‐Life Decisions in Individuals Dying with Dementia in Belgium

2015· article· en· W1980533867 on OpenAlexaff
Kenneth Chambaere, Joachim Cohen, Lenzo Robijn, S. Kathleen Bailey, Luc Deliëns

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
FundersBelgian Federal Science Policy Office
KeywordsDementiaMedicineQuality of life (healthcare)GerontologyOdds ratioOddsPalliative careCancerAdvance care planningEnd-of-life careDiseaseLogistic regressionInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To describe the prevalence and characteristics of end-of-life decisions in individuals dying with dementia in Belgium. DESIGN: Retrospective mail survey. SETTING: Brussels and Flanders, Belgium. PARTICIPANTS: Physicians certifying a large random sample of deaths (n = 8,627). MEASUREMENTS: End-of-life decision-making in individuals dying with dementia (n = 361) was compared through bivariate and multivariable analyses with decision-making in individuals dying from cancer (n = 1,276) as reference group. RESULTS: Response rate was 54.7%. The intense pain and symptoms of individuals with dementia was alleviated less often than those of individuals with cancer (odds ratio (OR) = 0.50, P < .001), and individuals with dementia were more likely to have life-prolonging treatment withheld or withdrawn (OR = 1.40, P = .048). Five individuals with dementia (1.3%) requested euthanasia but did not receive it; 60 (4.7%) individuals with cancer who requested euthanasia received it, and 48 (3.8%) who requested it did not (OR = 0.04, P = .047). Individuals with dementia rarely had capacity to participate in decision-making, which more often involved their families than in individuals with cancer (OR = 1.99, P = .009). Little prospect of improvement (59.7%), pointless life prolongation (54.5%), poor quality of life (46.2%), and prevention of further suffering (37.6%) were important reasons for end-of-life decisions in individuals with dementia. CONCLUSION: End-of-life decision-making in individuals dying with dementia differs from that in individuals with cancer, more often involving forgoing of life-prolonging treatment and less often involving intensifying pain and symptom treatment. Considerations typically involve the prospects of the individual with dementia as opposed to the severity of their present situation. Optimal processes of advance care planning may address the burdensome decision falling to physicians and family regarding when to allow the individual to die.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Geriatrics SocietySame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207