Physicians’ View on Resuscitation Discussions among Patients and their Family in Comprehensive Cancer Center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cardiopulmonary resuscitation can be medically futile and lead to prolonged suffering in some patients with disseminated malignancies.The aim of this study is to identify physicians' awareness, knowledge, and attitudes towards performing or withholding Cardiopulmonary resuscitation in cancer patients in the Middle East and the process they preferred for discussing this with the patients and families.A crosssectional survey was used and sent to physicians from different specialties in Comprehensive Cancer Center.There was a 68% ( 51 out of 75) response rate for the survey; the majority(82%) were males.84% identified the discussion of resuscitation with patients and relatives as important, and 98% stated that they would prefer not to resuscitate patients with metastatic disease where the resuscitation would be medically futile.More than half 57 % wished to discuss resuscitation with both patients and relatives, together and 12% (6) stated that patients alone should be involved in this discussion.The best time for resuscitation discussion is when the patient is conscious and oriented by 86% (n=43) of responders; 10.0 %( n=5)) wished to wait till the patient was comatose and requirement of resuscitative measures were imminent.Less than half the responders (43%) were aware of hospital policies regarding resuscitation.Most physicians in our study were aware of the importance of resuscitation discussion in cancer patients but varied in their approach as to when and to whom they should have these discussions.A small minority still believed that resuscitation should continue regardless of medical futility and most were not aware of hospital policies.This study highlights the importance of education and further training in the discussion about cardiopulmonary resuscitation for physicians involved in cancer care.
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 | 0.006 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".