End-of-life decision making in dementia
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Family caregivers are often required to make treatment decisions on behalf of institutionalized loved ones with advanced-stage dementia. Deciding on appropriate treatment is a complex process which can be difficult for families. This grounded theory study examined the concerns of family caregivers regarding their relative’s care and explored how end-of-life treatment decisions are made. Data were collected from in-depth interviews with 24 caregivers and analysed using constant comparison and dimensional analysis, resulting in a substantive theory of decision making. The role of decision maker from the perspective of family caregivers is described. The relative’s level of quality of life emerged as central to decision making. Four end-of-life phases were identified in which treatment intensity was influenced by the caregivers’ evaluation of quality of life. The results highlight the importance of including family caregivers’ experiences in working toward caregiver/medical team consensus around treatment decisions at the end of life in dementia.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it