MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Dying with breast cancer: An audit

2005· article· en· W2590707171 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Clemons, Lynn Zalany, T. Marcus, Gerry Beaudoin, A. Blair, Barbara Fitzgerald, Joanna Sue, John Fralick, Christine Simmons

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineReferralPalliative careAuditBreast cancerEnd-of-life careCancerFamily medicineCause of deathDiseaseEmergency medicineInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

8154 Background: Most patients dying of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) would prefer to die at home if possible. Unfortunately, significant discordance exists between preferred & actual location of death, with less than 30% of pts dying at home. The low incidence of home death is associated with a low rate of palliative care referral & a high rate of specialist care at the end of life. At our centre coordination of palliative care & supportive care services is facilitated by a dedicated social work (SW) team. The purpose of our study was to review the management of end of life care of MBC pts to determine if it was consistent with their wishes & to identify areas of improvement. Methods: Pts with MBC who died under the care of one oncology team between October 2001 & October 2004 were identified. Pt demographics, place of death, & expressed preference for place of death were recorded. Health care professionals involved with each pt were interviewed. Results: 63 pts died during the audit period. Mean age was 60 yrs (30–92 range). Median time with metastatic disease was 25 months (range 1 week-125 months). 82% had end of life discussions with the oncologist, & this took place a median of 75 days before death (range 2–983 days). While 71% of pts expressed that they wished to die at home, only 33% actually did. 26% died in a palliative care unit, & 40% died in an acute care setting. 85% of pts were seen by SW prior to death. Health care professionals felt earlier referral to SW & earlier discussion of palliative care services may help meet pts needs. Conclusions: Despite the presence of a coordinating supportive care team, there remains a significant discordance between pt wishes & actual place of death. From clinical experience, while many acute hospital admissions at the end of life occur due to poor coordination of palliative resources or primary care-giver distress, earlier referral to SW may help in the coordination of resources to improve pt management. 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.364
GPT teacher head0.592
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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