MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990839993 · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7411.372

Is asking patients in palliative care, “Are you depressed?” appropriate? Prospective study

2003· article· en· W1990839993 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mari Lloyd‐Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDepression (economics)Palliative careMedicineQuality of life (healthcare)Prospective cohort studyPredictive valueQuarter (Canadian coin)PsychiatryIntensive care medicinePsychologyInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The interviewed doctors came from two hospitals in two different regions.Therefore our results may not apply throughout the United Kingdom, but it does seem that most doctors have no idea as to the amount of radiation received by patients undergoing commonly requested investigations, despite them all having undertaken the radiation protection course.This lack of awareness of the degree of exposure to ionising radiation becomes particularly pertinent when we consider the number of patients who receive inappropriate or repeat examinations.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.098
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.320 · 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

Citations81
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207