Psychotherapeutic Considerations for Patients With Terminal Illness
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dignity has gained increasing attention as a vital component of quality of life and quality of end-of-life care. This article reviews psychological, spiritual, existential, and physical issues facing patients at the end of life as well as practical considerations in providing therapy for this population. The authors reviewed several evidence-based treatments for enhancing end-of-life experience and mitigating suffering, including a primary focus on dignity therapy and an additional review of meaning-centered psychotherapy, acceptance and commitment therapy, and cognitive-behavioral therapy. Each of these therapies has an emerging evidence base, but they have not been compared to each other in trials. Thus, the choice of psychotherapy for patients at the end of life will reflect patient characteristics, therapist orientation and expertise with various approaches, and feasibility within the care context. Future research is needed to directly compare the efficacy and feasibility of these interventions to determine optimal care delivery.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it