Clinical characteristics of patients having single versus multiple patient encounters within a palliative care programme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to describe the clinical characteristics of patient initial presentations, and to explore associations between patients' clinical characteristics at initial presentation and number of encounters (single vs multiple) to an integrated palliative care programme. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of a decedent cohort of 2922 patient initial presentations to the Edmonton Zone Palliative Care Program (EZPCP). Data included age, gender, setting of encounter, diagnosis, Edmonton Symptom Assessment System, CAGE, Mini-Mental Status Examination, Palliative Performance Status, Edmonton Classification System for Cancer Pain and time to death. RESULTS: On initial presentation to the EZPCP, the mean age was 73 (SD 14 years), with 1358 (46%) being female, and the majority having a cancer diagnosis (n=2376, 81%), the most common of which was gastrointestinal primary (n=681, 29%). In univariate analyses, patients with younger age (<60), higher palliative performance status (>40%), a malignant diagnosis, gastrointestinal primary or unimpaired cognition at initial presentation were significantly associated with multiple encounters with an integrated palliative care programme (p<0.05). In a multivariate regression analysis, a malignant diagnosis, longer survival, higher performance status and initial entry through acute care sites were independently associated with multiple encounters in the programme (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Larger prospective studies are warranted to further elucidate the complex relationships between patient clinical characteristics, initial presentations and subsequent encounters to an integrated palliative care programme.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".