MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Defining high-quality palliative care in oncology practice: An ASCO/AAHPM Guidance Statement.

2015· article· en· W2259666820 on OpenAlexaff
Kathleen Bickel, Kristen K. McNiff, Mary K. Buss, Arif H. Kamal, Dale Lupu, Amy Pickar Abernethy, Michael S. Broder, Charles L. Shapiro, Anupama Kurup Acheson, Jennifer L. Malin, Tracey L. Evans, Monika K. Krzyzanowska

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPalliative careMedicineReferralFamily medicineQuality of life (healthcare)PsychosocialSubspecialtyDelphi methodNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

108 Background: When integrated into routine oncology care, palliative care can improve symptom burden, quality of life, and patient and caregiver satisfaction. However, not all oncology practices have access to subspecialty palliative medicine for referral. This project endeavored to define what constitutes high-quality primary palliative care as delivered by medical oncology practices. Methods: An expert steering committee developed a list of 966 palliative care service items, divided into nine domains, each describing an aspect of palliative care delivery for patients with advanced cancer. Using a modified Delphi methodology, 31 multi-disciplinary panelists ranked each service item according to importance, feasibility and scope. Results: Panelists endorsed the highest proportion of palliative care service items in the domains of End-of-Life Care (81%); Communication and Shared Decision-Making (79%); and Care Planning (78%). Lowest proportions were in: Spiritual and Cultural Assessment and Management (35%) and Psychosocial Assessment and Management (39%). In the largest domain, Symptom Assessment and Management, there was consensus that all symptoms should be assessed and managed at a basic level with more comprehensive management for common symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, dyspnea and pain. Under the domain of Appropriate Palliative Care and Hospice Referral, there was consensus that oncology practices should be able to describe the difference between palliative care and hospice to patients and refer patients with an expected survival of under 3 months or poor performance status (Zubrod 3-4) to hospice. Conclusions: This statement describes high-quality palliative care for patients with advanced cancer or high symptom burden, as delivered by oncology practices. Oncology providers wishing to enhance palliative care delivery may find the guidance useful to inform operational changes and quality improvement efforts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.055
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.064
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.292

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0550.064
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0060.009
Research integrity0.0160.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.564
GPT teacher head0.674
Teacher spread0.109 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues→French-language works237,207→