MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098953980 · doi:10.1186/cc5016

Ethics roundtable debate: patients and surrogates want 'everything done'--what does 'everything' mean?

2006· review· en· W2098953980 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher J. Doig, Holt Murray, Rinaldo Bellomo, Michaël Kuiper, Élie Azoulay, David Crippen

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCritically illComprehensionEngineering ethicsIntensive care medicinePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Highly complex and specialized care plans sometimes overwhelm the comprehension of patients and families. Many optimistic surrogates of critically ill patients err on the side of desiring that everything be done but with a nebulous idea of what 'everything' entails. Physicians must work closely to educate surrogates as to the benefits versus the risks of treatment. Our roundtable experts ponder the question of whether providers possess the authority to interpret unilaterally the nature of requests for everything.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.888
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.213
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical CareSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207