In-home palliative care increased patient satisfaction and reduced use and costs of medical servicesCommentary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
S Enguidanos Correspondence to: Dr S Enguidanos, Partners in Care Foundation, San Fernando, CA, USA; senguidanos@picf.org Does an in-home palliative care (IHPC) programme plus usual care increase patient satisfaction and reduce use and costs of medical services compared with usual care alone? ### Design: randomised controlled trial. ### Allocation: concealed. ### Blinding: blinded (data collectors). ### Follow-up period: to death or end of study period. ### Setting: 2 health maintenance organisations in Hawaii and Colorado, USA. ### Patients: 310 patients (mean age 74 y, 51% men) who had a primary diagnosis of congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or cancer; had a life expectancy ⩽12 months; had visited the emergency department (ED) or hospital within the previous year; and scored ⩽70% on the Palliative Performance Scale. ### Intervention: IHPC plus usual care (n = 155) or usual care alone (n = 155). IHPC was provided by an interdisciplinary team including the patient and …
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".