A multidisciplinary approach in providing transitional care for patients with advanced cancer.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients living with a diagnosis of an advanced life-limiting malignancy often have concerns regarding symptom burden, physical and psychosocial impact on life, and questions surrounding end-of-life processes. Due to the complex care needs of patients with advanced life-limiting illness it is our experience that both a multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary approach to care can optimize the patient and family illness experience for this vulnerable population. Progressive metastatic illness often necessitates care in multiple settings including an ambulatory clinic, inpatient hospital ward, at home, and at an in-patient hospice or palliative care unit. Palliative care teams are typically composed of clinicians from various disciplines who work in multiple settings and can act as a link between community, ambulatory and in-patient care-settings. The team often includes physicians, advance practice nurses [nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialists (CNSs)], nurses, social workers, chaplains, and other allied health clinicians. The result of this team approach, in collaboration with oncology providers, makes palliative care an ideal model for providing care through the many transitions that are inherent to patients living with advanced malignancy.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".