MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Ethics in the Intensive Care Unit with Emphasis on Medical Futility in Comatose Survivors of Cardiac Arrest

2000· article· en· W2015552930 on OpenAlex
G. Bryan Young

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntensive care unitCertaintyMedical ethicsEthical issuesMedicineLife Support CareQuality of life (healthcare)Intensive careMedical emergencyIntensive care medicinePsychologyMEDLINENursingEngineering ethicsPsychiatryPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Medical futility refers to situations or cases in which treatment offers no meaningful benefit to the patient. Brain death does not pose a management problem because patients are considered to be dead. Management of other cases requires sequential considerations. First, the prognosis must be established with certainty. Then, if it is determined that there is no possibility of the patient regaining conscious awareness, a level of care should be decided through discussions involving the physician and significant others. Usually there is a consensus that high-level intensive care is not justified to maintain such a low quality of life. When the patient's advance directives or the substitute decision maker's request differs from the physician's recommendations, there are methods of resolving the issues that respect ethical and legal principles.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.236
GPT teacher head0.506
Teacher spread0.270 · 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