A Prospective Study with Patients and Families on the Usefulness of Accurate Prognosis for Palliative Care Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prediction of life expectancy in terminally ill patients is an important end-of-life care issue for patients, families and mental health workers during the last days of life. This study was conducted to examine the importance/usefulness for patients/families to have an accurate prognosis and its impact on planning their activities prior to death. All patients admitted during a period of one year were included. Patients' and families' viewpoints on the usefulness of an accurate prognosis was documented at admission. There were 285 patients in the cohort. The median time to death was 8 days. Most families (83%) rated the importance of an accurate prognosis as moderately (13%) to very much useful (70%). A total of 42% of patients were able to complete e the questionnaire. Among these, 58% found it moderately to very much useful. For families, having an accurate prognosis influenced the planning of visits (69%), communication/closure (42%) and spiritual needs/funeral arrangements (31%). Patients identified planning of visits (10%), communication/closure (12%), and goals/accomplishments (9%) as very important. Discussing the prognosis and its impact is very helpful for the mental health professionals to have open and honest conversations with patients/families to identify, prioritize and adapt treatment to achieve goals prior to death.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".