Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in advanced stages runs an unpredictable downward course with increasingly frequent, ultimately fatal exacerbations. Worldwide financial and human costs are huge. Responsibility for initiating advance care planning in COPD has usually fallen to the physicians. The tendency has been to avoid this aspect of care, which can result in inadequate, rushed, reactive, crisis decision-making in the form of a "code status" discussion. In this article, I review the relevant literature and report findings from a qualitative study designed within my doctoral program to explore the question, "What is required for meaningful and effective advance care planning in the context of advanced COPD?" I describe the "collaborative care" approach to advance care planning I used with eight patients and carers living with advanced COPD. Along with a skilled clinician facilitator, user-friendly education elements, and attention to readiness, unique aspects of the approach included a focus on caring, engaging hope, facilitator reflective praxis, and contextual sensitivity. This approach has significant potential for enhancing decision making and goal setting, efficiency of resource utilization, and satisfaction with outcomes. Done well, it may reclaim the care element in advance care planning as it addresses barriers cited by physicians and patients/families.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".