MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2810322921 · doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000005897

Palliative care needs are everywhere

2018· letter· en· W2810322921 on OpenAlexaff
Jocelyn Zwicker, Barbara J. Lutz

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2018
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPalliative careMedicinePsychosocialSpecialtyAmyotrophic lateral sclerosisCurative careAdvance care planningQuality of life (healthcare)NeurologyDiseaseNursingIntensive care medicineHealth careFamily medicineAmbulatory carePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The concept of palliative care in neurology continues to evolve; yet, the stigma about palliative care remains. Some may view offering palliative care to patients with serious neurologic conditions as a medical failure. Until recently, most clinicians have associated palliative care with end-of-life care for patients with malignancy. Fortunately, many have increasingly recognized that end-of-life care is an important aspect of care for patients with neurologic conditions. In recent years, the concept of palliative care has expanded further to include care that focuses on physical, psychosocial, intellectual, and spiritual needs, with the goal of improving quality of life for all patients with serious illness. Thus, palliative care may be appropriate during any phase of serious illness.1 Many neurologic disorders (e.g., multiple sclerosis, stroke, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and Parkinson disease) fall within this framework. Neuropalliative care has begun to emerge as a specialty to address these important needs of our patients and their families.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.010
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0140.022
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.004

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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurologySame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207