Surrogate inaccuracy in predicting older adults’ desire for life-sustaining interventions in the event of decisional incapacity: is it due in part to erroneous quality-of-life assessments?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Family members are often called upon to make decisions for an incapacitated relative. Yet they have difficulty predicting a loved one's desire to receive treatments in hypothetical situations. We tested the hypothesis that this difficulty could in part be explained by discrepant quality-of-life assessments. METHODS: The data come from 235 community-dwelling adults aged 70 years and over who rated their quality of life and desire for specified interventions in four health states (current state, mild to moderate stroke, incurable brain cancer, and severe dementia). All ratings were made on Likert-type scales. Using identical rating scales, a surrogate chosen by the older adult was asked to predict the latter's responses. Linear mixed models were fitted to determine whether differences in quality-of-life ratings between the older adult and surrogate were associated with surrogates' inaccuracy in predicting desire for treatment. RESULTS: The difference in quality-of-life ratings was a significant predictor of prediction inaccuracy for the three hypothetical health states (p < 0.01) and nearly significant for the current health state (p = 0.077). All regression coefficients were negative, implying that the more the surrogate overestimated quality of life compared to the older adult, the more he or she overestimated the older adult's desire to be treated. CONCLUSION: Discrepant quality-of-life ratings are associated with surrogates' difficulty in predicting desire for life-sustaining interventions in hypothetical situations. This finding underscores the importance of discussing anticipated quality of life in states of cognitive decline, to better prepare family members for making difficult decisions for their loved ones. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN89993391.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".