MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Palliative Care: An Historical Perspective

2008· article· en· W2008378664 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Matthew Loscalzo

Bibliographic record

VenueHematology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPalliative careContext (archaeology)End-of-life careMedicineDistressNursingPsychologyGerontologyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Palliative care began with a focus on the care of the dying. Dr. Cicely Saunders first articulated her ideas about modern hospice care in the late 1950s based on the careful observation of dying patients. She advocated that only an interdisciplinary team could relieve the “total pain” of a dying person in the context of his or her family, and the team concept is still at the core of palliative care. In the 1960s, a psychiatrist in the United States, Elisabeth Kubler-Ross, confronted fierce resistance to treating people at the end of life with respect, openness and honest communication. Her groundbreaking book, On Death and Dying, and charismatic presentations revolutionized and humanized how dying patients were acknowledged and cared for. In 1974, Dr. Balfour Mount, a surgical oncologist at The Royal Victoria Hospital of McGill University in Montreal, Canada, coined the term palliative care to avoid the negative connotations of the word hospice in French culture, and introduced Dr. Saunders’ innovations into academic teaching hospitals. He first demonstrated what it meant to provide holistic care for people with chronic or life-limiting diseases and their families who were experiencing physical, psychological, social, or spiritual distress. In 1997, the Institute of Medicine report, “Approaching Death: improving care at the end of life” (M.I. Field and C.K. Cassel, editors) documented glaring deficiencies in end-of-life care in the United States. With the support of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and George Soros’ Open Society Institute, a major effort to bring palliative care into mainstream medicine and nursing was launched. There were clinical demonstration projects, reviews of palliative and end-of-life care content of core textbooks, consumer awareness through Last Acts and the Bill Moyer’s Series, “On Our Own Terms” (2000), funding of palliative care faculty scholars, and an NIH State of the Science conference. Clinical Practice Guidelines for Quality Palliative Care were first released in 2004, expanding the focus of palliative care to include not just dying patients, but also patients diagnosed with life-limiting illnesses. By 2006, there were 57 palliative medicine fellowship programs with approximately 100 trainees. In 2006, the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) and the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education recognized the subspecialty of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Reflecting the roots of palliative medicine in many specialty fields, the boards of 10 specialties are cosponsoring the ABMS certification examination, given for the first time in 2008, and there are over 3000 members of the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Palliative medicine is the continuation of the long struggle to accept life on its own terms, honestly and openly. Taking its place in academic medicine, this new subspecialty will enable future generations of physicians to gain generalist-level palliative medicine skills while advancing knowledge in the field and fulfilling our promise to patients and their families that we will not abandon them when our treatments fail and that, at all times, we will do all we can to relieve their suffering.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0080.017
Scholarly communication0.0080.009
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0060.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.175
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations62
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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