MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3081403213 · doi:10.1186/s13584-020-00401-5

At the crossroads of religion and palliative care in patients with dementia

2020· letter· en· W3081403213 on OpenAlexafffund
Kieran L. Quinn, Daphna Grossman

Bibliographic record

VenueIsrael Journal of Health Policy Research · 2020
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Work & HealthNorth York General HospitalSinai Health SystemToronto General HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsPalliative careDutyNursingEnd-of-life careDementiaMedicineQuality of life (healthcare)Assisted suicideMarie curiePsychologyPsychiatryLawPolitical scienceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The timing of palliative care initiation may be more appropriately directed using a needs-based approach, instead of a prognostically driven one. Jewish Law or Halachah ("the way") upholds a strong commitment to the sanctity of life and teaches that the duty to prolong life supersedes the duty to end suffering prematurely, unless one is expected to imminently die. This intersection of palliative care and a reliance on prognostic triggers with an individual's observance of religious traditions complicates matters nearing the end-of-life. A recent pilot study by Sternberg et al. of 20 patients with advanced dementia in Israel found that home hospice care significantly reduced distressing symptoms, caregiver burden and hospitalization and teaches us important lessons about some of the essential elements to providing excellent palliative care at home, including the 24/7 availability of healthcare providers outside of the emergency department. In light of specific religious practices, palliative care should strive to incorporate a patient's specific religious observance as part of high-quality end-of-life care.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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 score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0140.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.223
GPT teacher head0.541
Teacher spread0.318 · 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIsrael Journal of Health Policy ResearchSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207