MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4327558228 · doi:10.1097/pra.0000000000000692

A Leg to Stand On: Working With Marginal Decision-making Capacity in a Patient With a Severe Leg Infection and Schizophrenia

2023· review· en· W4327558228 on OpenAlexaff
Zoe Kichler, Lisa Andermann, Wendy Chow, Gesland Gnanapragasam, Samuel Law

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychiatric Practice · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)AmputationTask (project management)MedicineIntervention (counseling)DeliriumMental illnessPsychiatryIntensive care medicinePsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Assessment of a patient's capacity to make treatment decisions and working with the wishes of a patient with mental illness against the best medically indicated plan is a complex and dynamic task. It is particularly challenging when the course of deterioration of the illness is meandering and slow, and the time horizon for recovery is uncertain, providing no clear point of entry for definitive crisis intervention. High-impact decisions concerning body integrity, such as the amputation of a leg, further complicate the task. To highlight these challenges and complexities, we present the case of a man who suffered from schizophrenia, with a worsening diabetic foot ulcer and suboptimal acceptance of proper wound care. The patient died as a result of his refusal of a proposed amputation to address his life-threatening infection. Medical system and cultural issues are also considered.

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: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Psychiatric PracticeSame topicHealthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsFrench-language works237,207