Development of a Clinical Practice Guideline for Palliative Sedation
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Palliative sedation is an effective symptom control strategy for patients who suffer from intractable symptoms at the end of life. Evidence suggests that the use of this practice varies considerably. In order to minimize variation in the practice of palliative sedation within our health region, we developed a clinical practice guideline (CPG) for the use of palliative sedation. Using available evidence from the literature, a five step process was employed to develop the CPG: (1) a working group was charged with the mandate to develop a draft guideline; (2) a working definition for palliative sedation was developed; (3) criteria for use of sedation were determined; (4) critical steps to be taken prior to initiation of sedation were defined; and (5) the CPG was reviewed by local stakeholders. Feedback from the wider group of stakeholders was used to arrive at the final CPG, which subsequently received approval from the local Medical Advisory Board. The process used to develop the CPG served to develop consensus within the local community of palliative care clinicians regarding the practice of palliative sedation. Subsequently, the CPG was used as a tool for educating other health care providers.
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 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 | 0.006 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 it