Oxycodone Immediate Release for Cancer Pain Management in Turkey: Maximizing Value in Opioid Analgesics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cancer pain can be severe, yet is often undertreated. In many parts of the world, there is a reluctance to prescribe narcotics for analgesia. Since the World Health Organization first published its pain ladder treatment paradigm in 1988, cancer pain is usually treated initially with nonopioids, then weak opioids, and finally strong opioids along with adjuvant agents as the pain intensifies. When initiating opioid therapy for cancer patients, the clinician must consider whether the patient is opioid naƒ¯ve or opioid experienced. For naƒ¯ve patients, opioid therapy must be started slowly, at a low dose initially, with adverse events anticipated and treated proactively. In all cases, opioid titration involves a controlled, stepwise increase of opioid dose until adequate (but not necessarily 100%) analgesia is achieved. A variety of opioid products are available, including immediate-release and controlled-release formulations. Immediate-releaseformulations are designed for easy titration to adequate analgesia; their rapid onset of action also makes them appropriate for managing breakthrough pain. Although morphine has long been considered the gold standard of cancer analgesics, oral oxycodone is increasingly used and is similar to morphine in efficacy and safety for cancer patients. Indeed, about 75% of morphine-tolerant patients can be successfully rotated to oxycodone. Adverse events with oxycodone are similar or perhaps favorable compared to those of other strong opioids. Because cancer pain can be challenging to treat, the addition of oral oxycodone IR is an important new tool for clinicians to consider when trying to control cancer pain.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".