Delirium in cancer patients: a focus on treatment-induced psychopathology
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
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Delirium is a neuropsychiatric syndrome that occurs frequently in cancer patients, especially in those with advanced disease. Recognition and effective management of delirium is particularly important in supportive and palliative care, especially in view of the projected increase in the elderly population and the consequent potential for the number of patients both diagnosed and living longer with cancer to increase substantively. RECENT FINDINGS: Studies of delirium in a variety of settings have generated new insights into phenomenology, assessment tools, the psychomotor subtypes, potential patho-physiological markers, pathogenesis, reversibility, and the role of sedation in symptom control. SUMMARY: Validated tools exist to assist in the assessment of delirium. Although our understanding of the pathogenesis of delirium has improved somewhat, there remains a compelling need to further elucidate the underlying pathophysiology, especially in relation to opioids and the other psychoactive medications that are used in supportive care. Further trials are needed, especially in patients with advanced disease to determine predictive models of reversibility, preventive strategies, outcomes, and to assess the role of antipsychotic and other medications in symptomatic management.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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