Robotic Animal Use among Older Adults Enrolled in Palliative or Hospice Care: A Scoping Review and Framework for Future Research
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
As the population of older adults increases, there is an anticipated rise in the utilization of hospice and palliative care. Many significant advancements in technology have been used to address the unique needs of this demographic; however, an unexplored area of research is the use of robotic animals as part of end-of-life care. The purpose of this scoping review was to examine the state of the literature on robotic animal use among older adults enrolled in palliative or hospice care and to offer a framework for future research. Following a guide for scoping reviews, we identified relevant studies and then charted, collated, summarized, and reported the data. Two articles were selected for final review. The results found that decreased medication use, behavior change, and emotional benefits were potential outcomes of robotic animal use in hospice and palliative care. Perceptions of the robot and ethical considerations were also discussed. Overall, the study findings point toward the potential uses of robotic animals as part of end-of-life care, however, more empirical research is critically needed.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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