Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and aims: Utilizing a family centered approach paediatric palliative care (PPC) promotes quality of life while addressing distressing symptoms, when facing a life threatening illness. While the main principles of PPC can be incorporated by any health professional, there is growing evidence that specialized PPC programs may provide a higher quality of care. Location of death, continuity of care, and timely communication around goals of care and resuscitation are important to bereaved families. Aims: With the advent of a local PPC service, we hypothesize, fewer children will die: in intensive care units, in hospital, and while receiving CPR. Methods: Demographic and clinical information related to pediatric deaths at LHSC between 2004 and 2013 will be obtained through existing clinical databases and chart review in order to complete a pre/post comparison documenting: Location, DNR status, and Resuscitation attempts at the time of death. Study protocol has been submitted for ethics approval. Results: Study is ongoing. Conclusions: In 2002, a Canadian multicenter study examining end of life care demonstrated that nearly half of children who received care from a PPC program died at home; this is in stark contrast to other research demonstrating the vast majority of children die in hospital; most often in an intensive care setting. This study, we hope, will show that more children are dying at home not in hospital, on the ward and not in the intensive care unit, and with comfort measures being provided instead of CPR at the time of death in cases where PPC was involved.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.602 | 0.400 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".