Factors predicting the risk of loss of decisional capacity for medical assistance in dying: a retrospective database review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bill C-14, the legislation that legalized medical assistance in dying (MAiD) in Canada in 2016, outlines eligibility criteria and includes both a mandated 10-day reflection period and a requirement that the patient have capacity to consent at the time MAiD is provided. We examined clinical factors associated with shortened reflection periods or loss of capacity before provision of MAiD. METHODS: This retrospective database review involved patients who requested MAiD at a tertiary care hospital in Toronto, Canada, between June 2016 and April 2019. We used logistic regression analyses to examine the association between the combined outcome of unanticipated loss of decisional capacity, shortening of the reflection period or death and the clinical risk factors of interest (age, sex, location of MAiD request [inpatient v. outpatient], score on palliative performance scale [PPS] and diagnosis [cancer v. noncancer]). We generated receiver operating characteristic curves to identify the PPS score (encompassing 5 functional domains: ambulation, activity level, self-care, intake and level of consciousness) that best predicted loss of capacity, shortening of the reflection period or death. RESULTS: In total, 155 patients requested assessment for MAiD, and 136 of these were included in the statistical analyses. For 68 patients, the reflection period was not shortened; the other 68 patients lost capacity, died or required shortening of the reflection period. In contrast to the results for age, sex, location of request and diagnosis, the PPS score was associated with loss of capacity or shortening of the reflection period (odds ratio 4.63, 95% confidence interval 2.87-8.23, per 10-point decrease in PPS score). PPS scores less than or equal to 40% balanced sensitivity, specificity and negative predictive value while emphasizing sensitivity to prevent false negative errors. INTERPRETATION: The PPS score at the time of MAiD request was strongly associated with loss of capacity or shortening of the reflection period, with lower scores incrementally increasing the risk of these outcomes. For patients with a PPS score of 40% or below, close monitoring is warranted, potentially with plans made to allow rapid provision of MAiD should their clinical condition deteriorate.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".