MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129387583 · doi:10.3399/bjgp11x578043

Palliative care or end-of-life care in advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease A prospective community survey

2011· article· en· W2129387583 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

VenueBritish Journal of General Practice · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsWomen's Health Research Institute
FundersGuy's and St Thomas' Charity
KeywordsMedicineCOPDPalliative carePulmonary diseaseEnd-of-life careDiseasePhysical therapyEmergency medicineIntensive care medicineInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Calls for better end-of-life care for advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) reflect the large number who die from the disease and their considerable unmet needs. AIM: To determine palliative care needs in advanced COPD. DESIGN: Cross-sectional interview study in patients' homes using structured questionnaires generated from 44 south London general practices. METHOD: One hundred and sixty-three (61% response) patients were interviewed, mean age 72 years, 50% female, with diagnosis of COPD and at least two of: forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV(1)) <40% predicted, hospital admissions or acute severe exacerbations with COPD, long-term oxygen therapy, cor pulmonale, use of oral steroids, and being housebound. Patients with advanced cancer, severe alcohol-related or mental health problems, or learning difficulties, were excluded; 145 patients were included in the analysis. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-eight (88%) participants reported shortness of breath most days/every day, 45% were housebound, 75% had a carer. Medical records indicated that participants were at least as severe as non-participants. Eighty-two (57%) had severe breathlessness; 134 (92%) said breathlessness was their most important problem; 31 (21%) were on suboptimal treatment; 42 (30%) who were severely affected had not been admitted to hospital in the previous 2 years; 86 of 102 who had been admitted would want admission again if unwell to the same extent. None expressed existential concerns and few discussed need in terms of end-of-life care, despite severe breathlessness and impairment. CONCLUSION: Needs in advanced COPD were considerable, with many reporting severe intractable breathlessness. Palliation of breathlessness was a priority, but discussion of need was seldom in terms of 'end-of-life care'.

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)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.235
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.295 · 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