Formal ventilation patient education for ALS predicts real-life choices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our objective was to evaluate a single-session, hands-on education programme on mechanical ventilation for ALS patients and caregivers in terms of knowledge, change in affect and to determine whether ventilator decisions made after the education sessions predict those made later in life. Questionnaires were administered to 26 patients and 26 caregivers on four separate occasions. The questionnaires assessed knowledge of ventilatory support, feedback on the nature of the education programme, as well as self-reported emotional well-being. All patients were followed until their death or until initiation of invasive ventilation. Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in knowledge as a result of the education session which was retained after one month. There was no change in patient or caregiver reports' self-reported emotional well-being. The choices of ventilatory support expressed at one month (T4) accurately predicted the real-life clinical choices made by 76% of patients. Any difference resulted from choosing palliative care. Hands-on patient and caregiver education results in improved knowledge, assists in decision-making with respect to ventilatory support, and is not associated with a worsening of affect. It also provides for an accurate prediction of real-life choices and avoids undesired life support interventions and critical care admissions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".