Effectiveness of advance directives for the care of terminally ill patients in Chiang Mai University Hospital, Thailand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The key hypothesis behind advance directives (ADs) proposes that, if an intervention enhances a person's right to choose, a dying person will not opt for expensive, life-prolonging medical care and an ethically acceptable saving of resources will result. In order to assess the acceptability and effectiveness of ADs in reducing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) attempts and in-hospital death among terminally ill patients in a tertiary care hospital in northern Thailand, a non-randomized, controlled intervention study using an after-only unequivalent control group design was conducted. The majority of the subjects and the surrogates preferred to employ ADs in expressing their preferences on CPR and there was a high level of agreement between the subjects and surrogates on the decision. The use of ADs appeared to be effective in reducing futile CPR attempts and the in-hospital mortality rate among subjects during the index hospitalization. Advance directives were accepted well in this study setting.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".