MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321370204 · doi:10.1177/08404704221141048

MAiD for geriatric syndromes: Special considerations

2023· article· en· W4321370204 on OpenAlexafffund
Caitlin Lees, Melissa K. Andrew

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlzheimer SocietyConsortium canadien en neurodégénérescence associée au vieillissement
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Health careGeriatric carePsychological interventionVulnerability (computing)GeriatricsPsychologyGerontologyMedicineNursingPsychiatryComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) brings unique considerations in the context of geriatric syndromes such as frailty and cognitive or functional impairment. These conditions are associated with complex vulnerability across health and social domains and often do not have predicable trajectories or responses to healthcare interventions. In this article, we focus on four categories of gaps in care that are particularly relevant for MAiD in geriatric syndromes, namely, inadequacies in access to medical care, appropriate advance care planning, social supports, and funding for supportive care. We conclude by arguing that appropriately situating MAiD in the context of care for older adults requires careful consideration of these gaps in care to enable real, robust, and respectful healthcare choices for people living with geriatric syndromes and approaching 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.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0070.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.008
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0130.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.183
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Management ForumSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207