Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and assisted ventilation: How patients decide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Throughout the course of their illness, people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) must make many treatment decisions; however, none has such a significant impact on quality of life and survival as decisions about assisted ventilation. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to better understand the experience of decision-making about assisted ventilation for ALS patients. METHODS: Using qualitative phenomenology methodology, 10 semi-structured interviews were conducted with persons with ALS and their caregivers to elicit factors that are pertinent to their decision-making process about assisted ventilation. RESULTS: Six main themes emerged from the interviews. (1) the meaning of the intervention - participants made a sharp distinction between non-invasive ventilation, which they viewed as a means to relieve symptoms of respiratory failure, and invasive ventilation, which they viewed as taking over their breathing and thereby saving their life when they otherwise would die, (2) the importance of context - including functional status, available supports, and financial implications, (3) the importance of values - with respect to communication, relationships, autonomy, life, and quality of life, (4) the effect of fears - particularly respiratory distress, chocking, running out of air, and the process of death itself, (5) the need for information - how use of assisted ventilation would impact daily life, how death from respiratory failure would occur, how caregivers and persons with ALS differ in their information needs and common misconceptions, and (6) adaptation to or acceptance of the intervention - a lengthy process that involved gradual familiarization with the equipment and its benefits. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESEARCH: People with ALS and caregivers value autonomy in decision-making about assisted ventilation. Their decision-making process is neither wholly rational nor self-interested, and includes factors that health professionals should anticipate and address. Discussions about assisted ventilation and timing should be tailored to each individual and undertaken periodically.
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 | 0.009 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| 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".