MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041144037 · doi:10.1089/jpm.2012.0085

The End-of-Life Experience for a Cohort of Patients with Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension

2012· article· en· W2041144037 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Daniel Grinnan, Keith M. Swetz, Janet Pinson, Paul Fairman, Laurie Lyckholm

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Palliative Medicine · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNIH Clinical CenterGilead Sciences
KeywordsMedicinePalliative careCohortEnd-of-life careAdvance care planningDiseaseCohort studyCommonwealthEmergency medicineIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is a progressive and ultimately fatal disease of the pulmonary circulation. There has never been an investigation of the end-of-life symptoms in patients with PAH. In this investigation, we surveyed surrogates of recent decedents with PAH. We evaluate their responses to better understand the end-of-life experience of patients with PAH. METHODS: The survey instrument includes demographic information and the Edmonton Symptoms Assessment Scale. Accredo Therapeutics mailed the survey to surrogates of recent decedents with PAH, and responses were anonymously returned to investigators at Virginia Commonwealth University and used in our descriptive analysis. RESULTS: Of 100 surveys distributed over 24 months (February 2009 to February 2011), we obtained 36 responses (response rate 36%). We found that most patient deaths (90%) were related to PAH, that the majority of patients died in the hospital (67%), with the majority of in-hospital deaths (83%) occurring in intensive care. Palliative care was infrequently involved in patients' care, and many surrogates were unaware of palliative care and hospice services available to the decedents. Patients died with a high symptom burden, especially dyspnea. CONCLUSION: In this cohort, patients with PAH usually died from their disease, often in the hospital setting with a high symptom burden. Further study will be needed to confirm the findings from this study and to better understand the forces leading to the trends uncovered in this investigation.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.252

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations33
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Palliative MedicineSame topicPulmonary Hypertension Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207