Attitudes toward advance directives and the impact of prognostic information on the preference for cardiopulmonary resuscitation in medical inpatients in Chiang Mai University Hospital, Thailand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our previous study revealed that cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) was performed in 65.7% of 411 terminally ill patients who died in a tertiary-care university hospital in northern Thailand. Advance directives (ADs) are needed to ensure that life-sustaining therapies are used more appropriately. To investigate inpatients' attitudes regarding ADs for CPR and the impact of providing prognostic information on treatment preferences for CPR, we interviewed a randomly selected group of 200 ambulatory medical inpatients in multiple sessions. The results showed that most subjects had a positive attitude towards ADs for CPR. The majority preferred to have CPR when no information was provided on the chance of survival. However, this proportion decreased depending on the prognostic scenarios. Our investigation suggested that the preference of patients for CPR should be assessed individually and gradually, with adequate information given on the chance of survival.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".