A Literature Review of Randomized Controlled Trials of the Organization of Care at the End of Life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We searched nine electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about care at the end of life and found 23 RCTs. We assessed their quality using the criteria of the Cochrane Collaboration. The RCTs researched three themes: (a) the effect of providing palliative care through dedicated community teams on quality of life, on the management of symptoms, on satisfaction with care, on the duration of the palliative period, and on place of death; (b) the effects of specific palliative care interventions-advanced planning of care for the end of life, patient-held records, providing quality-of-life data to patients and physicians, grief education for relatives, palliative care education for nurses, and palliative care for patients with dementia; and (c) the costs of palliative compared to conventional care. We identify difficulties in conducting research on palliative care and solutions and discuss future possible research themes.
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 | 0.041 | 0.169 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".