1258 Developing a global and comprehensive definition for advance care planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The ACP-international society is in the process of conducting a global ACP consensus driven definition and the structural elements necessary for advance care planning through a Delphi process. Prior to this, two international ACP definitions were published for adults (2017), one for persons with dementia (2023) and one for Asia societies (2024). Those contributed significantly to our understanding of ACP however lacked global inclusion, various population group (e.g. minors) and required structural elements for ACP programs. Aim/Purpose Building upon the global Delphi process results, this focus group workshop will further contribute to the global understanding of an ACP and required design elements. Objectives Participants will be asked to identify, articulate and discuss what regional specifics, population groups and structural elements are not included in the current ACP definitions. Participants will contribute to a global, inclusive and comprehensive ACP definition and required structural elements. Audience This workshop is intended for consumers and ACP experts (practitioners, research and science, policy making) with heterogeneous professional, local and cultural backgrounds. There should be a willingness for the discussions to be audio-recorded and transcribed. Consent will be asked for in the workshop. No min./max. number of attendees. Structure/Format Through storytelling and case studies, participants will be provided the opportunity to learn about unintended excluded populations and overlooked structural elements of current ACP. Participants will actively collaborate in small group discussions with an aim to include diversity, culture and inclusion throughout ACP definitions and structural elements. Standardize questions will be posed, followed by facilitated discussion with a goal to be curious and learn from the diversity of participants lived experiences and expertise. Uniqueness Participants in this workshop will have a unique opportunity to contribute to a global consensus driven definition of ACP and required design elements through in-person dialogue. Following the evaluation of the on-line Dephi process, this qualitative focus group method provides further exploration into how ACP has expanded and evolved at a micro, meso and macro levels. Implications The previous ACP Delphi studies provided us a step towards unifying select countries consensus definition and practice recommendations. A globally shared consensus-based definition will support consistent application within multidisciplinary clinical practice, organizational policies, research, and the law. This work will significantly impact how ACP is understood, practiced and conveyed to persons and those important to them as they go through their health journey within the broader health systems.
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 | 0.034 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.008 |
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".