MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7144071350 · doi:10.24727/00027734

選択的治療停止と終末期医療

2009· article· ja· W7144071350 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
政雄 廣瀬, Masao Hirose

Bibliographic record

VenueInstitutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageja
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiscontinuationMedical treatmentMedical careDiseaseHospital careMedical practice

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A serious decision is urged on families and doctors about treatment and the life-prolonging procedure in the infant with serious illness, patients with the end.stage cancer, the senior citizen or the newborn baby with the serious illness trouble whose recovery cannot be expected. It has been divided among the medical institutions how the life-prolonging procedure should be done to the patient and the child with a hopeless current state. There have appeared some institutions in which hospital indicator or ethical committee for the interests of patients has been set up. The indicator in the United States and Canada decided that cooperation between family and physician is necessary when they decide the discontinuation of the life-sustaining treatment. However, there is a point of problem that the policy is perhaps different in one hospital to another. The author experienced pediatric patients with serious newborn disease or end stage of malignant disease in whom the life-prolonging medical treatment were stopped. In this paper, I consider the judge in the medical treatment done on each occasion to be correct or not by comparing them with a present indicator. In addition, I turn around about the selective treatment stop and the terminal care in the future.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.005

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInstitutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB)Same topicEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric HealthcareFrench-language works237,207