MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Characteristics of patients who refuse medically appropriate do not resuscitate orders (DNR) upon admission to a palliative care (PC) unit in a comprehensive cancer center

2009· article· en· W2564750478 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Henrique A. Parsons, Maxine de la Cruz, Marvin Omar Delgado-Guay, Adenike E. Akitoye, Ray Chacko, V. Poulter, Éduardo Bruera

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePalliative careCardiopulmonary resuscitationCancerDo not resuscitateRetrospective cohort studyInternal medicineIntensive care unitMultivariate analysisEmergency medicinePediatricsResuscitationIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

9589 Background: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) has limited benefit in advanced cancer patients (pts). Refusal of medically appropriate DNR (maDNR) may cause harm and distress for pts, families, and the medical team. We conducted a retrospective study to determine the frequency of refusals of maDNR in a tertiary PC unit in a comprehensive cancer center, and characterize the differences between maDNR acceptors (A) and refusers (R). Methods: We reviewed 2538 consecutive admissions to the PC unit to find refusals of maDNR. Data were collected regarding demographical/clinical factors, 0–10 Edmonton Symptom Assessment System, DNR, CPR, and death for the first 100 R and 200 A pts. Results: DNR was considered medically appropriate for 2530/2538 (99%) admissions. 2374/2530 admissions were of unique pts, and 100/2374 (4%) refused maDNR. 3/3 (100%) R pts who coded underwent CPR versus 0/87 A pts who coded (0%, p<0.0001). 2/3 CPR pts survived code and were discharged but died in less than 10 days. Median age (62), female gender (54%), and religious affiliation were not different between R and A. African-Americans and pts with head and neck malignancies were more frequently R than others (OR=1.99, CI=1.13–3.51, p=0.02 and OR=2.62, CI=1.05–6.56, p=0.04, respectively). A had more hematological malignancies and advance directives (OR=2.66, CI=1.07–6.63, p=0.02, and OR=2.80, CI=1.68–4.66, p<0.0001, respectively). Multivariate regression analysis revealed that pts with hematologic malignancies (OR 2.69, CI=1.05–6.90 p= 0.04) and advance directives (OR 1.46, CI=1.46–4.27, p= 0.001) were associated with A. R pts presented with median (interquartile range, IR) pain of 7(4–9) vs 5(3–8, p=0.0005) nausea of 2(0–7) vs 1(0–4, p=0.05), and dyspnea of 1(0–5) vs 4(0–7, p=0.002). Median (IR) time between PC consult and death and discharge and death were 143 (49–329) days for R vs 25(10–77) for A (p<0.0001) and 85 (25–206) for R and 18 (8–35) for A (p<0.0001). Conclusions: DNR refusal in pts after PC consult is low, more frequent among African Americans, pts with head and neck cancers, pts with more pain or nausea, and is associated with longer survival. This study demonstrates possible predictors of complicated DNR discussions. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.275
GPT teacher head0.542
Teacher spread0.268 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues→French-language works237,207→