Attitudes and Opinions of Pediatric Physicians Regarding Decisions to Withdraw or Withhold Medically-Provided Hydration or Nutrition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deciding to forego intravenous hydration (IH) and medically-provided nutrition (MPN) in pediatric patients remains controversial. Minimal published research exists that explores the attitudes and approaches of pediatricians who are making these decisions. This survey explored attitudes and opinions of pediatricians that influence decisions to forego IH & MPN in children. Sixty Canadian pediatricians responded amongst whom 49 had previous experience with foregoing IH & MPN. Respondents felt that IH & MPN were medical treatments, withdrawal was ethically permissible, and that these should be addressed separately from discussions about withdrawal of other life-sustaining therapies. Fewer respondents felt IH & MPN were ethically equivalent to other life-sustaining therapies. Most respondents felt greater discomfort withdrawing IH & MPN. Own emotional comfort was less influential in experienced pediatricians compared to pediatricians without experience. The approach of experienced pediatricians deserves further study to help refine current guidelines and education of new pediatricians who may face these issues.
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 | 0.004 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".