MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2465981656 · doi:10.1017/s0714980815000574

L’utilisation des échelles de niveaux d’interventions médicales en centre hospitalier

2016· review· en· W2465981656 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marjolaine Frenette, Jocelyne Saint‐Arnaud

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionIntervention (counseling)End-of-life carePsychologyMedicineNursingPalliative care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Different care settings in Quebec use levels of medical intervention forms, also called levels of care (LOC), to determine the code status of patients and to improve end-of-life care planning. It is not currently possible to know whether the levels of care in hospitals benefit patients and staff in facilitating the decision making process of treatment options and resuscitation measures. No study, to the best of the authors' knowledge, has been published about LOC, particularly in Quebec and Canada. This literature review was undertaken on levels of care in order to clarify this topic. Relevant articles are discussed under different themes that are pertinent to LOC. The themes addressed in this article include care at the end of life, do-not-resuscitate orders, treatment withdrawal, and decision making at end of life.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.603
Threshold uncertainty score0.800

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement→Same topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues→French-language works237,207→