End-of-Life Strategies among Patients with Advanced Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: The burden of advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is high globally; however, little is known about how often end-of-life strategies are used by this population. OBJECTIVES: To describe trends in the use of end-of-life care strategies by people with advanced COPD in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: A population-based repeated cross-sectional study examining end-of-life care strategies in individuals with advanced COPD was conducted. Annual proportions of individuals who received formal palliative care, long-term oxygen therapy, or opioids from 2004 to 2014 were determined. Results were age and sex standardized and stratified by age, sex, socioeconomic status, urban/rural residence, and immigrant status. Measurement/Main Results: There were 151,912 persons with advanced COPD in Ontario between 2004 and 2014. Use of formal palliative care services increased 1% per year from 5.3% in 2004 to 14.3% in 2014 (P value for trend < 0.001), whereas use of long-term oxygen therapy increased 1.1% per year from 26.4% in 2004 to 35.3% in 2013 (P value for trend < 0.001). The use of opioids was relatively stable (40.0% in 2004 and 41.8% in 2014; P value for trend = 0.08). Younger individuals were less likely to use formal palliative care services and long-term oxygen therapy. Males were less likely than females to receive long-term oxygen therapy and opioids. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of people with advanced COPD using end-of-life strategies, although increasing, remains low. Efforts should focus on increasing access to such strategies and educating patients and providers of their benefits.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".