When is enough, enough? Exploring ethical and team considerations in paediatric cardiac care dilemmas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Therapies for paediatric congenital and acquired heart disease continue to evolve and the appropriateness of pursuing life sustaining interventions at margins of standard therapy is ethically challenging. RECENT FINDINGS: With ongoing emphasis on shared decision making, recent literature explored physician and parental perspectives on communication with families and offering interventions for complex congenital heart disease and advanced heart failure. The inclusion of parental values and views in this process is now widely accepted. Identified outstanding challenges include difficulty with prognostication from the outset, adjusting long-term goals of care to changes in clinical parameters, need for consistency in communication including regular review meetings with family or surrogate decision-makers. Bioethics consultation and multidisciplinary team reviews may be helpful supports. Palliative care involvement in this population improves quality of life and alleviates parental distress but this collaboration is not optimized. SUMMARY: Decision to offer, forgo, or discontinue life-sustaining therapies for children with heart disease has nuanced and context-specific considerations, and must integrate burdens of interventions with patient and family values. Thus, decision making remains complex and demands thoughtful review of not only risks and benefits, but views and values, clearly communicated to team and family.
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 | 0.015 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".