End‐of‐life care in the intensive care unit
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The transition from active, invasive interventions to comfort care for critical care patients is often fraught with misunderstandings, conflict and moral distress. The most common issues that arise are ethical dilemmas around the equivalence of withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment; the doctrine of double effect; the balance between paternalism and shared decision-making; legal challenges around best-interest decisions for patients that lack capacity; conflict resolution; and practical issues during the limitation of treatment. The aim of this article is to address commonly posed questions on these aspects of end-of-life care in the intensive care unit, using best available evidence, and provide practical guidance to critical care clinicians in the UK. With the help of case vignettes, we clarify the disassociation of withdrawing and/or withholding treatment from euthanasia; offer practical suggestions for the use of sedation and analgesia around the end of life, dissipating concerns about hastening death; and advocate for the inclusion of family in decision-making, when the patient does not have capacity. We propose a step-escalation approach in cases of family conflict and advocate for incorporation of communication skills during medical and nursing training.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it