MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Changing focus: Living with advanced cancer—Development of a palliative care transition project.

2015· article· en· W2591348809 on OpenAlexaffabout
Paul Daeninck, Simone Stenekes, Tara Carpenter-Kellett, Jill Talylor-Brown, Mark Kristjanson, Ruth Loewen, Joel Roger Gingerich

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaCancerCare Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineReferralPalliative careAdvance care planningFocus groupCancerNursingFamily medicineHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

152 Background: The improvement in cancer screening, detection and treatment is changing the illness trajectory and experience for patients. Many cancer patients are living longer with advanced disease as treatment options have expanded. Thus, accurate prognostication is becoming challenging and referral to palliative care programs is often delayed until close to death. This has made the transition to a predominantly palliative approach to care complex to navigate for the health care team, patient and family. Methods: CancerCare Manitoba has undertaken an innovative project “Changing Focus: Living with Advanced Cancer” to enhance communication with primary health care providers (HCPs) and assist patients and caregivers in the transition to a palliative approach to care. The project includes development of an individualized patient treatment summary that provides details of the patient’s cancer treatment and symptoms, identifies the role of the HCPs involved with the patient and family, as well as the expectations for follow up care at the cancer centre and in the community. The transition appointment includes discussion around the treatment summary, standardized follow up care plan, and written information about palliative care, decision making, symptom management, unique issues for caregivers and details about local supports and resources is provided. Results: This presentation will focus on the development and implementation of this project within the cancer centre and throughout the province. Evaluation of this approach is ongoing. Family members and patients will provide feedback using a standardized questionnaire, and ongoing improvement will be built into the evolution of this program. HCPs will also be engaged in evaluation from their perspective. Conclusions: We expect this intervention will allow patients and families better quality of life and possibly improve the interval between the termination of chemotherapy and death.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0010.004
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 head0.395
GPT teacher head0.570
Teacher spread0.174 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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