MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W48000987 · doi:10.1177/082585970201800402

Delirium in Advanced Cancer: A Psychoeducational Intervention for Family Caregivers

2002· article· en· W48000987 on OpenAlexaff
Pierre Gagnon, Cécile Charbonneau, Pierre Allard, Colette Soulard, Serge Dumont, Lise Fillion

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Palliative Care · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalÉlisabeth Bruyère HospitalHôtel-Dieu de QuébecMichel-Sarrazin
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeliriumFamily caregiversIntervention (counseling)Palliative careMedicineDistressFamily memberCaregiver burdenPsychiatryCancerNursingFamily medicineClinical psychologyDementiaDiseaseInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Delirium, a global brain dysfunction, develops frequently in advanced cancer. It is a leading source of distress for family caregivers. Following recommendations from palliative care professionals and caregivers for terminally ill cancer patients, a psychoeducational intervention was implemented in a palliative care hospice to help family caregivers cope with delirium and, eventually, to contribute to early detection. Prior to receiving information on delirium, the majority of the family caregivers did not know what it was or that it could be treated. Few knew that patients in terminal care could become delirious. For caregivers, receiving the intervention increased their confidence they were making good decisions, and the majority felt that all family caregivers should be informed on the risk of delirium (p < 0.009). A specific intervention on delirium, tailored to the needs of the family caregivers, seems beneficial for caregivers and for patients.

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: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations84
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Palliative CareSame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207