MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4291019328 · doi:10.1111/bjh.18401

Quality of <scp>end‐of‐life</scp> care in multiple myeloma: A <scp>13‐year</scp> analysis of a population‐based cohort in Ontario, Canada

2022· article· en· W4291019328 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Ghulam Rehman Mohyuddin, Aynharan Sinnarajah, Anastasia Gayowsky, Kelvin Chan, Hsien Seow, Hira Mian

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Haematology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsCanadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer ControlSunnybrook Health Science CentreMcMaster UniversityQueen's University
FundersCanadian Cancer Society Research InstituteCanadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control
KeywordsMedicinePalliative careEnd-of-life careEmergency departmentCohortIntensive care unitPopulationEmergency medicineMultiple myelomaInternal medicineFamily medicineNursingEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Optimizing end-of-life (EOL) care for multiple myeloma (MM) represents an unmet need. An administrative cohort in Ontario, Canada was analysed between 2006 and 2018. Aggressive care was defined as two or more emergency-department visits in the last 30 days before death, or at least two new hospitalizations within 30 days of death, or an intensive care unit (ICU) admission within the last 30 days of life. Supportive care was defined as a physician house-call in the last two weeks before death, or a palliative nursing or personal support visit at home in the last 30 days before death. Among 5095 patients, 23.2% of patients received chemotherapy at EOL and 55.6% of patients died as inpatient. A minority received aggressive care at EOL [28.3%: autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), 20.4%: non-ASCT], and a majority received supportive care at EOL (65.4%: ASCT, 61.5%: non-ASCT). Supportive care was less likely to be received by those aged over 80 years and in lower-income neighbourhoods. Supportive care at EOL increased from 56.0% in 2006 to 70.3% in 2018. Despite improvements, many patients with MM experience aggressive care at EOL. Even in a publicly funded health care system, disparities based on age, income and community size are present.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.352

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of HaematologySame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207