Development of Advance Care Planning Research Priorities: A Call to Action
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to develop a national, prioritized research agenda for advance care planning (ACP). We first identified a list of comprehensive ACP research topics and determined priority criteria through focus groups. We next conducted a survey wherein importance weights were assigned to priority criteria and each ACP topic was rated. We combined weights and ratings into overall scores. A total of 17 ACP topics were developed and placed into four categories: patients and family members, the general public, professionals, and the healthcare system. Four main priority criteria were created: feasibility, consistency with ethical and societal values, economic considerations, and impact. Of the 100 individuals we invited to participate in the survey, 62 accepted. Prioritized topics centred largely on the impact of ACP on health resource utilization, communicating advance care planning across settings, and the preferred manner of engaging patients in ACP.
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 | 0.556 | 0.394 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.044 | 0.055 |
| Open science | 0.019 | 0.047 |
| Research integrity | 0.046 | 0.096 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".