Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: An up-to-date summary of the literature on children's and adolescents' understanding of their own terminal illness and death. RECENT FINDINGS: Clinicians still find it difficult to speak with pediatric patients about death even though guidelines for facilitating communication on the topic exist. As a result, pediatric patients are less likely to develop a clear understanding of their illness and there is a disconnect between clinicians and parents about prognosis, even when clinicians have concluded there is no longer possibility for cure. Insufficient communication and poor understanding may increase the risk of patients feeling isolated, mistrustful and anxious, and deprive them of a role model who can communicate about painful issues or share difficult feelings. Despite these complexities, young people often show remarkable resiliency in the face of death and want to get the most out of the remaining time they have. SUMMARY: In addition to these most recent findings, this review examines the challenges in researching this topic, obstacles to patients receiving information about prognosis, and how physical symptoms affect patients' ability to develop an understanding. It also reviews sources of insight into pediatric patients' understanding including the development of concepts of death, fears about their own death, legal interpretations of what patients understand, and how terminally ill young people continue to treasure life. It concludes by addressing ways clinicians can use the knowledge we have to communicate well with dying children and adolescents and their families.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".