Ophthalmology Considerations in End-of-Life Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ophthalmologic interventions can significantly impact quality of life, even in the context of end-of-life care. This paper explores the ethical and clinical considerations for ophthalmologic treatments in hospice care, with a focus on cataract surgery, age-related macular degeneration (ARMD) therapy, retinal detachment (RD) repair, glaucoma, painful blind eye (PBE) management, benign and surface ocular tumors, and corneal or anterior segment diseases. A review of published literature and clinical precedent was conducted to assess the benefits, risks, and practical limitations of ophthalmologic procedures in hospice patients, with an emphasis on quality of life. Cataract surgery has been shown to be cost-effective in hospice settings, offering significant improvements in vision and overall quality of life. Treatment for ARMD, though requiring ongoing injections, can provide benefits within weeks and help sustain visual function. RD repair, while more complex, can substantially restore vision when appropriately managed. Palliative glaucoma interventions, including individualized target intraocular pressures and laser therapy, can minimize treatment burden while maintaining comfort. PBEs may be managed with retrobulbar chlorpromazine or alcohol injections, and enucleation or evisceration may be considered when pain persists. Benign or surface ocular tumors and corneal or anterior segment diseases can often be addressed with conservative, comfort-focused measures to reduce symptoms and preserve quality of life. Ophthalmologic procedures should be considered viable options in end-of-life care when clinically indicated, with careful ethical review. Restoration of vision contributes meaningfully to the quality of life and deserves thoughtful inclusion in care planning.
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 | 0.040 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".