Case Discussions in Advanced Care Planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Advanced care planning (ACP) provides an opportunity for individuals to explore and document their values concerning medical care decisions prior to an acute event. This manuscript explores the value of ACP and compares and contrasts 2 ACP models currently in practice. METHODS: This hypothetical case describes an elderly, frail patient with end-stage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who is also a high user of health care resources. A new palliative care-led outpatient ACP clinic model is described using this example. RESULTS: Using the ACP clinic model in this case reveals how different a patient's end of life experience may be when proper, proactive planning measures are in place. With proper education and discussion around this patient and family's wishes pertaining to the end of his life, this man was able to change his plan of care from aggressive resuscitation treatment in hospital to a peaceful palliative experience at home. CONCLUSIONS: In this case description, the valuable role of ACP in preserving quality of life for patients, increasing satisfaction with care, and decreasing distress among family members during a medical event is demonstrated.
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 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".