Evolution in Measuring the Quality of Dying
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
PURPOSE: Despite multiple efforts to improve the experience for dying patients, researchers still struggle to identify appropriate outcome measures that assess patients' and families' experiences. If health care systems are to provide excellent, compassionate care to dying patients and their families, there must be a valid means of assessing the quality of those experiences and interventions to improve care. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate quality-of-life instruments currently used to assess the experiences of dying patients, and to offer a design for a next generation instrument to measure quality at the end of life. DESIGN: Sources were attained through a review of the quality of life, quality of dying, and end-of-life care literatures. The terms quality of life, quality of care, terminal care, hospice, assessment, and measurement were used singly and in combination in the MEDLINE database from 1966 to 2001. DISCUSSION: An appropriate clinical quality of dying instrument must be derived from the perspectives of end-of-life care participants and include the multiple domains of experience important to patients and families. Because dying patients are often too ill to communicate, nonresponse bias is a major problem in this population. Researchers must identify additional objective and subjective measures that clearly reflect, correspond well (or predictably) with, and serve as alternatives to patients' self-ratings. Additionally, an appropriate assessment tool must accommodate individual definitions of the quality of dying and demonstrate sensitivity to change over time.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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