MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2593576905 · doi:10.1111/jar.12349

Consensus statement of the International Summit on Intellectual Disability and Dementia related to end‐of‐life care in advanced dementia

2017· article· en· W2593576905 on OpenAlexaff
Philip McCallion, Mary Hogan, Flávia H. Santos, Mary McCarron, Kathryn Pekala Service, Sandy Stemp, Seth M. Keller, Juan Fortea, Kathleen M. Bishop, Karen Watchman, Matthew P. Janicki

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDown syndrome and intellectual disability research
Canadian institutionsCiena (Canada)Ontario Neurotrauma Foundation
FundersNational Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research
KeywordsDementiaWorkgroupSummitPalliative careIntellectual disabilityEnd-of-life careGerontologyPsychologyAdvance care planningMedicinePsychiatryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Adults with intellectual disability are affected by dementia at equivalent and elevated rates, many surviving into advanced age. End of life care and support considerations come into play among these individuals when most are in the advanced stage of dementia. METHODS: A preliminary report summarizing available literature and making initial recommendations was developed by a workgroup, reviewed by all conference participants and then was finalized by the workgroup. RESULTS: The International Summit on Intellectual Disability and Dementia produced a report on End of life care in advanced dementia that provides a synthesis statement which encompasses defining the state of advanced dementia, proposes use of palliative care services (including hospice) and recommends special efforts for enabling advanced directives and advance care planning prior to the extensive progression of dementia. The Summit further recommended that when aiding adults with advanced dementia, the following be undertaken: integrative efforts between intellectual disability and palliative care providers, specialized training for carers on end of life care and supports, and involvement of adults with intellectual disability early on in their advance care planning. CONCLUSIONS: The Consensus recommendations will ensure greater and more appropriate support at end of life for persons with intellectual disabilities and advanced dementia.

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)0.181
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.170
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.181
Threshold uncertainty score0.957

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1810.170
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.011
Bibliometrics0.0070.005
Science and technology studies0.0080.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0140.016
Research integrity0.0280.034
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.007

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.314 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations44
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Research in Intellectual DisabilitiesSame topicDown syndrome and intellectual disability researchFrench-language works237,207