MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reversal of the British trends in place of death

2012· article· en· W2318799621 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bárbara Gomes, Natália Calanzani, Irene J Higginson

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Supportive & Palliative Care · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlace of deathHistoryGeographyPolitical scienceMedicinePalliative care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Increased attention is being paid to the place where people die in order to provide choice and adequate care for terminally ill patients. Secular trends towards institutionalised dying have been reported in Britain and other developed world regions. Aims and Methods To examine British trends in place of death from 2004 to 2010. Time-series analysis of death registration data from the Office for National Statistics for all 3,525,564 deaths registered in England and Wales from 2004 to 2010. Results There was a slow but steady increase in the proportion of deaths at home, from 18.3% in 2004 to 20.8% in 2010. Absolute numbers of home deaths increased by 9.1%, whilst overall numbers of deaths decreased by 3.8%. The rise in home deaths was more pronounced in cancer, happened for both genders and across all age groups except for those younger than 14 years and for the aged 65-84 but only up to 2006. The rise was more evident when ageing was accounted for (age-gender standardised proportions of home deaths increased from 20.6% to 23.5%). Conclusion Following trends in the USA and Canada, dying is shifting to people's home also in Britain. Home deaths increased for the first time since 1974 amongst people aged 85 years and over. There is an urgent need across nations for comparative evidence on the outcomes and the costs of dying at home.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.657

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.121
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Supportive & Palliative CareSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207