Flowchart for inclusion of patients in the study.
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
<div><p>Background</p><p>Integration of oncology and palliative care has been shown to increase quality of life in advanced disease. To meet the needs of the growing older population, integration of palliative care and geriatrics has been proposed but scarcely described.</p><p>Objectives</p><p>The aim of this study was to integrate palliative care into geriatrics by a structured care guide, the Swedish Palliative Care Guide, and to evaluate its effect on patient satisfaction, health-related quality of life and symptom burden, compared to a control group.</p><p>Methods</p><p>Geriatric in-patients over 65 years of age were included in the study, those with cognitive impairment were excluded. Data was collected before (baseline) and after the implementation (intervention) of the Swedish Palliative Care Guide. Patient satisfaction was evaluated two weeks after discharge with questions from a national patient survey. Health-related quality of life was measured with EQ-5D-3L and symptom burden with Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale.</p><p>Results</p><p>In total, 400 patients were included, 200 in the baseline- and intervention group, respectively. Mean age was 83 years in both groups. Patient satisfaction was significantly higher in nine out of ten questions (p = 0.02-<0.001) in the intervention group compared to baseline. No differences between the groups were seen in health-related quality of life or symptom burden.</p><p>Conclusion</p><p>A significant effect on patient satisfaction was seen after implementation of the Swedish Palliative Care Guide in geriatric care. Thus, integration of palliative care and geriatrics could be of substantial benefit in the growing population of older adults with multimorbidity and frailty.</p></div>
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 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