A multicentre international study of sedation for uncontrolled symptoms in terminally ill patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The issue of symptom management at the end of life and the need to use sedation has become a controversial topic. This debate has been intensified by the suggestion that sedation may correlate with 'slow euthanasia'. The need to have more facts and less anecdote was a motivating factor in this multicentre study. Four palliative care programmes in Israel, South Africa, and Spain agreed to participate. The target population was palliative care patients in an inpatient setting. Information was collected on demographics, major symptom distress, and intent and need to use sedatives in the last week of life. Further data on level of consciousness, adequacy of symptom control, and opioids and psychotropic agents used during the final week of life was recorded. As the final week of life can be difficult to predict, treating physicians were asked to complete the data at the time of death. The data available for analysis included 100 patients each from Israel and Madrid, 94 patients from Durban, and 93 patients from Cape Town. More than 90% of patients required medical management for pain, dyspnoea, delirium and/or nausea in the final week of life. The intent to sedate varied from 15% to 36%, with delirium being the most common problem requiring sedation. There were variations in the need to sedate patients for dyspnoea, and existential and family distress. Midazolam was the most common medication prescribed to achieve sedation. The diversity in symptom distress, intent to sedate and use of sedatives, provides further knowledge in characterizing and describing the use of deliberate pharmacological sedation for problematic symptoms at the end of life. The international nature of the patient population studied enhances our understanding of potential differences in definition of symptom issues, variation of clinical practice, and cultural and psychosocial influences.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".