MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096638660 · doi:10.1037/0278-6133.22.6.605

Stability of Older Adults' Preferences for Life-Sustaining Medical Treatment.

2003· article· en· W2096638660 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Psychology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality
KeywordsPreferencePsychologyDirectiveGerontologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of instructional advance directives assumes that preferences for life-sustaining medical treatment remain stable over time and across changes in life condition. A sample of 332 older adults recorded their preferences for 4 life-sustaining treatments in 9 illness scenarios. These preferences were elicited again 1 and 2 years after the original interview. Overall, preferences for life-sustaining treatment were moderately stable over time, but stability varied significantly across judgments. Preferences were most stable for illness scenarios that were most and least serious and for decisions to refuse treatment. Age, gender, education, and prior completion of an advance directive were all related to preference stability, and evidence indicated that declines in physical or psychological functioning resulted in decreased interest in life-sustaining treatment.

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 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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.512
Threshold uncertainty score0.627

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.271
GPT teacher head0.543
Teacher spread0.272 · 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