Assessment of the wish to hasten death in patients with advanced cancer: A comparison of 2 different approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The Desire for Death Rating Scale (DDRS) and the short form of the Schedule of Attitudes toward Hastened Death (SAHD-5) are different approaches to assessing the wish to hasten death (WTHD). Both have clinical threshold scores for identifying individuals with a meaningfully elevated WTHD. However, the agreement between the 2 measures and patient opinions about assessment of the WTHD are unknown. OBJECTIVES: To compare the DDRS and SAHD-5 and to analyze patient opinions about assessment of the WTHD. METHODS: The WTHD was assessed in 107 patients with advanced cancer using both the DDRS and SAHD-5. Patients were subsequently asked their opinion about this assessment. RESULTS: Correlation between scores on the SAHD-5 and the DDRS was moderate, Spearman rho = 0.67 (P < .01). The SAHD-5 identified 13 patients (12.1%) at risk of the WTHD, and the DDRS identified 6 patients (5.6%) with a moderate-high WTHD (P > .05). Concordance between the DDRS and SAHD-5 in identifying individuals with an elevated WTHD was poor when using recommended cut-off scores, κ = 0.37 (P < 0.01) but could be improved by using different thresholds. Only 4 patients (3.8%) regarded the assessment questions as bothersome, and 90.6% considered it important that health-care professionals inquire about the WTHD. CONCLUSIONS: The SAHD-5 and DDRS appear to be appropriate methods for assessing the WTHD and could provide complementary information in clinical practice: the SAHD-5 to screen for risk of the WTHD and the DDRS as a clinical interview to explore it in greater detail. Assessment of the WTHD is well accepted by palliative care cancer patients.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".