Documentation, process and implementation of advance care planning in the pediatric population: A scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To explore the literature surrounding pediatric ACP process, documenting and implementing the documentation processes in hopes to inform and support content experts in the creation of a pediatric provincial document for ACP.Introduction: The number of children with serious illness/medical complexity in this province who require ACP and documentation of medical intervention is estimated to be >500 or possibly more. An ongoing data analysis suggests that the number may exceed 1,000 children, greater than the number of children and families consulted to the CPCH program. Currently there is no provincial document for pediatric patients such as the BC Medical Orders for Scope of Treatment form (MOST) as there is in adult care.Inclusion criteria: The review will include studies that focus on documentation, process or implementation in pediatric advance care planning. Child refers to prenatal, neonate, child and youth population (0-19 years), but may also extend into young adulthood in some contexts. These children are defined as at-risk for sudden death and/or expected death prior to reaching adulthood.Methods: We will search MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Web of Science Core Collection and Google Scholar, as well as sources of unpublished studies and grey literature. Identified studies will be screened against the eligibility criteria. This review will only consider studies published in English and no date limits will be placed on the search. Relevant data will be extracted from eligible studies and the extracted data will presented in narrative and tabular/charted formats.
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 | 0.108 | 0.091 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.026 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.055 | 0.010 |
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".