MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793603752 · doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(18)30082-2

The Lancet Commission on Palliative Care and Pain Relief—findings, recommendations, and future directions

2018· article· en· W2793603752 on OpenAlexaffabout
Felícia Marie Knaul, Afsan Bhadelia, Natalia M. Rodriguez, Héctor Arreola‐Ornelas, Camilla Zimmermann

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Global Health · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPalliative careCommissionMedicinePain reliefMEDLINEFamily medicinePolitical scienceNursingLawSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The burden of serious health-related suffering is huge and could in large part be alleviated with palliative care and pain relief. About 25·5 million of 56·2 million people who died in 2015 experienced serious health-related suffering, and another 35·5 million experienced serious health-related suffering due to life-threatening and life-limiting conditions. A disproportionate number (more than 80%) of these 61 million individuals live in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) with severely limited access to any palliative care, even oral morphine for pain relief.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablemedium
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.067
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.184
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: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.357

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0670.184
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.005
Bibliometrics0.0070.012
Science and technology studies0.0030.007
Scholarly communication0.0180.012
Open science0.0100.010
Research integrity0.0240.019
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0370.026

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.353 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview · Commentary

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

Citations118
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Global HealthSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207