MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297904906 · doi:10.1177/082585970802400404

Palliative Care Patients in the Emergency Department

2008· article· en· W4297904906 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Palliative Care · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsEmergency departmentPalliative careMedicineLogistic regressionResidenceSpouseMultivariate analysisFamily medicineEmergency medicineNursingDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although end-of-life care is not a primary function of the emergency department (ED), in reality, many access this department in the later stages of illness. In this study, ED use by patients registered with the Capital Health Integrated Palliative Care Service (CHIPCS) is examined and CHIPCS patient characteristics associated with ED use identified. Overall, 27% of patients made at least one ED visit while registered with CHIPCS; 54% of these resulted in a hospital admission. ED visiting was not associated with time of day or day of the week. Multivariate logistic regression results suggest older patients were significantly less likely to make an ED visit. Making an ED visit was associated with hospital death, rural residence (particularly for women), and having a parent or relative other than a spouse or child as the primary caregiver. Further research may suggest strategies to reduce unnecessary ED visits during the end of life.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.665

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.292 · 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