Bibliographic record
Abstract
Letters2 March 2010Justifying Different Levels of Palliative SedationVictor Cellarius, MD and Blair HenryVictor Cellarius, MDFrom Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario M5G 1X5, Canada; and Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario M4N 3M5, Canada. and Blair HenryFrom Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario M5G 1X5, Canada; and Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario M4N 3M5, Canada.Author, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-152-5-201003020-00015 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail TO THE EDITOR:We read with great interest the article by Quill and colleagues (1), which presented and discussed 3 categories of palliative sedation: ordinary sedation, proportionate palliative sedation (PPS), and palliative sedation to unconsciousness (PSU). One notion shared by these practices, and by all attempts to justify sedation, is that the degree of sedation should match the symptoms—proportionality.The prominence of proportionality in this and other discussions of palliative sedation suggests a simpler and ethically clearer classification. Instead of "ordinary," "proportionate," and "unconscious" sedation, we suggest that all palliative sedation be classified as PPS. This is not a confusion ...References1. Quill TE, Lo B, Brock DW, Meisel A. Last-resort options for palliative sedation. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:421-4. [PMID: 19755367] LinkGoogle Scholar2. de Graeff A, Dean M. Palliative sedation therapy in the last weeks of life: a literature review and recommendations for standards. J Palliat Med. 2007;10:67-85. [PMID: 17298256] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: From Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario M5G 1X5, Canada; and Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario M4N 3M5, Canada.Disclosures: None disclosed. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsSee AlsoLast-Resort Options for Palliative Sedation Timothy E. Quill , Bernard Lo , Dan W. Brock , and Alan Meisel Justifying Different Levels of Palliative Sedation Daniel P. Sulmasy , Farr Curlin , Gerard S. Brungardt , and Thomas Cavanaugh Justifying Different Levels of Palliative Sedation Timothy E. Quill , Daniel Brock , Bernard Lo , and Alan Meisel Metrics Cited ByPalliative Sedation: A Medical-Ethical ExplorationReflections on palliative sedationPalliative Sedation: A Medical-Ethical ExplorationPalliative sedation: Controversies and challengesPalliatieve sedatie: hoe diep? 2 March 2010Volume 152, Issue 5Page: 332KeywordsConflicts of interestSedation ePublished: 2 March 2010 Issue Published: 2 March 2010 CopyrightCopyright © 2010 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF DownloadLoading ...
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 | 0.015 | 0.135 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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".