MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Incidence and risk factors for euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide in oncology patients: A systematic review.

2021· article· en· W3172847254 on OpenAlexaffabout
Wei Liu, Luke Liu, Alissa Liu, Sang Jia, Tony Liu, Gabriel Boldt, Melody Qu, Ian Ball

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsCancer Care OntarioUniversity of ManitobaWestern UniversityUniversity of TorontoLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIncidence (geometry)Odds ratioMEDLINEInternal medicineFamily medicineEmergency medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

12034 Background: In a growing number of jurisdictions, oncology patients may choose euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide (EPAS). A 2016 systematic review reported that 75% of U.S. and over 70% of Dutch and Belgian EPAS cases involved oncology patients. In the Netherlands and Belgium, the percentage of deaths among oncology patients via EPAS has been increasing. We investigated the incidence and risk factors for EPAS and EPAS requests in oncology patients. Methods: A systematic review was performed following PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched for articles from January 2000 to April 2020. Search terms were related to suicide, euthanasia, assisted dying, assisted death, right to die, mercy killing, and cancer. Eligible studies reported incidence and/or risk factors for EPAS/EPAS request based on at least 50 oncology patients. Eligibility for inclusion was independently reviewed by two authors, with discrepancies adjudicated by a third. Data obtained included: study type, country, cancer diagnosis, number of eligible patients, inclusion criteria, follow-up length, incidence of EPAS or EPAS request, and odds ratios (OR) for risk factors for EPAS and EPAS request. ORs and p values were extracted from studies whenever possible and were otherwise calculated based on the data provided using chi-squared test. Results: The search strategy identified 6519 results. 25 abstracts were selected for full-text review and 10 studies were included for analysis. All studies reported incidence of EPAS/EPAS request and 6 studies reported risk factors for EPAS/EPAS request. Six studies were from the Netherlands, 3 from Belgium, and 1 from Canada. Inclusion period for studies spanned from 1996 to 2018. Half of the included studies were prospectively conducted. Incidence of EPAS in cancer patients ranged from 7% to 15% and EPAS requests ranged from 8% to 27%. Factors significantly associated (p<0.05) with EPAS or EPAS request in any study are shown in the Table. Conclusions: Up to 15% of oncology patients choose euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide. Potentially modifiable symptoms including severe nausea, vomiting, and pain are significantly associated with EPAS in oncology patients.[Table: see text]

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.009
Bibliometrics0.0090.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.467
GPT teacher head0.596
Teacher spread0.129 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues→French-language works237,207→