MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2342289958 · doi:10.1177/1049909115599952

A Distress Protocol for Respiratory Emergencies in Terminally Ill Patients With Lung Cancer or Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

2015· article· en· W2342289958 on OpenAlexafffund
Krystelle Godbout, Lise Tremblay, Yves Lacasse

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine® · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec
FundersInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec, Université Laval
KeywordsMedicineCOPDMidazolamLung cancerRespiratory distressCancerPalliative careSedationIntensive care medicineAnesthesiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A combination of opioid, midazolam, and scopolamine (that we call "distress protocol" [DP]) is used to induce transient sedation when emergencies occur in palliative care. We wished to describe the prescription and administration of DP in terminally ill patients with either lung cancer or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In a retrospective study, 96 of 100 patients with cancer and 85 of 100 patients with COPD had a DP prescribed. Thirty patients with cancer and 29 with COPD received at least 1 DP. All patients receiving a DP for an appropriate indication were sedated within 30 minutes. There was no difference in survival from DP administration among patients who received it and those who did not.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.349 · 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
GenreProtocol

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

Citations11
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine®Same topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207