International Standards for Pediatric Palliative Care: From IMPaCCT to GO-PPaCS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Since the publication of the IMPaCCT project in 2007, much effort has been made to develop new approaches to pediatric palliative care (PPC). Fifteen years later, it is time to redefine the standards in PPC. OBJECTIVES: An international group of experts in PPC has revised the standards in PPC through the GO-PPaCS project (Global Overview - PPC Standards). The goal was to update the PPC standards considering the specificity of different settings, resources, and emerging challenges. The present document is intended to reach all people directly or indirectly involved in PPC. METHODS: A literature review in MEDLINE was conducted to expand on the fundamental points and current standards on PPC and to cover an international setting. The literature search (updated on the 15th of April 2021) was carried out using different combinations of keywords and focusing on papers published in English over the past 5 years (2016-2020), but older articles were considered when relevant. The consensus on the fundamental points, standards of care and paper contents was reached by open discussion. RESULTS: Fundamental points were defined regarding the definition of PPC, eligibility criteria and the magnitude of the need for PPC, while standards were redefined for the following six areas: 1) clinical, developmental, psychological, social, ethical and spiritual needs; 2) end-of-life care; 3) care models and settings of care; 4) PPC in humanitarian emergencies; 5) care tools; and 6) education and training for healthcare providers. CONCLUSION: The present document, developed with the contribution of an international group of experts from different countries, experiences and models of care, provides fundamental points and standards for a wider implementation of PPC worldwide.
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 | 0.090 | 0.155 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
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".