Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Managing pain effectively is one of the biggest challenges in medicine, let alone when dealing with the dying patient and his family. For palliative care specialists this is a daily challenge. However, ''To cure when possible, to give comfort always'' is an empty credo if physicians don't use every weapon in the medical arsenal to relieve the suffering caused by chronic pain. It's of course the opioids: morphine, heroin, their synthetic derivatives and other narcotics, a class of medications that conjure up visions of drug addiction and narcotic squads. To say that opioids are stigmatised by such allusions is putting it mildly. An unhealthy proportion of doctors and patients alike are afraid to have anything to do with them, even in when facing their final stages of life. This is particularly so in the Mediterranean society. It is here in Italy that an effort must be made to educate both physicians and the general public, an arduous task to change a long standing belief which requires a quick cultural turn around. Those who refuse opioids because they are afraid of addiction, and the doctors who refuse to prescribe them out of fear or pure unwillingness to address an apprehensive attitude on behalf of his patient, need to be better informed. Most misconceptions about opioids have to do with terminology, because words like ''morphine, addiction, dependency'' and ''tolerance'' mean entirely different things in popular and medical parlance. Add to this the perceptions and attitudes the patient can have with this terminology which then can have a profound effect on the success or failure of a pain control programme. In fact, most people think that medication such as morphine are only for people who are dying and as a consequence is synonymous with death itself. Is this why Italian physicians are not prescribing morphine even though great efforts have been made recently by the Health Ministry to facilitate prescribing laws and costs? It is worthy of serious consideration. Another important issue faced daily by palliative care physicians is the broad number of chronic conditions which could make use of opioids. Severe cancer pain is the most obvious example of an appropriate use of opioids, but hardly the only one. The North American Chronic Pain Association of Canada (NACPAC) advocates the use of opioids for a wide range of conditions causing severe chronic pain, including lower back pain, inflammatory bowel disease, migraines, AIDS, multiple sclerosis and arthritis. Concerns regarding under treatment of chronic pain have captured the attention of patient advocacy groups, policy makers and scientific organisations. Misconceptions of opioid laws, negative social stigma and lack of valid prescribing alternatives to overcome this, together with paucity of formal provider education confound the issue. Much education needs to be done before opioids will be seen as a safe and reasonable treatment for chronic pain here in Italy.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,012 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,008 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,010 | 0,011 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,108 | 0,023 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».