MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048160279 · doi:10.1089/jpm.2000.3.49

Opioid Type and Other Clinical Predictors of Laxative Dose in Advanced Cancer Patients: A Retrospective Study

2000· article· en· W2048160279 on OpenAlexaff
Isabelle Mancini, John Hanson, Catherine M. Neumann, Éduardo Bruera

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Palliative Medicine · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal motility and disorders
Canadian institutionsGrey Nuns Community Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLaxativeHydromorphoneConstipationOpioidPalliative careMethadoneRetrospective cohort studyCodeinePopulationInternal medicineMorphineAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Constipation is a frequent and underdiagnosed complication in patients with advanced cancer. Constipation in this population is multifactorial, but the use of opioids is one of the main causes. The purpose of this retrospective study was to establish the association between opioid type and laxative dose, as well as the contribution of other clinical factors in advanced cancer patients admitted to a palliative care unit. METHODS: The records of consecutive patients admitted to the Acute Palliative Care Unit at the Grey Nuns Hospital between December 1995 and January 1997 were reviewed. Criteria of eligibility were the presence of cancer pain treated by opioids (oral and subcutaneous morphine and hydromorphone, oral methadone), oral laxative treatment capable of achieving at least one bowel movement every 3 days, and the absence of bowel obstruction or colostomy. During period(s) of stable analgesic doses, the charts were reviewed for demographic and clinical characteristics, average number of bowel movements, daily laxative doses, doses and type of opioid, laxative/opioid dose ratio (LOR) (calculated by dividing the total laxative dose by the total opioid dose), functional and cognitive status, food intake, and level of calcium, albumin, and potassium. RESULTS: Forty-nine evaluable patients were identified. The LOR in patients receiving oral opioids was 0.15 +/- 0.19 vs. 0.18 +/- 0.17 in patients on parenteral opioids (p > 0.2). The LOR in patients receiving methadone was 0.025 +/- 0.027 as compared to 0.24 +/- 0.23 in patients receiving morphine and 0.17 +/- 0.13 in patients on hydromorphone (p < 0.0001). We found a strong association between LOR and abdominal involvement (p < 0.0006), opioid type (p < 0.0001), age (p < 0.0001), and female gender (p < 0.034). There were no significant correlation between LOR and functional status, cognitive status, food intake, and level of calcium or potassium. CONCLUSION: We conclude that laxative dose needs to be titrated on an individualized basis. The LOR is lower in patients receiving methadone and in those of male gender, younger age, and absence of abdominal involvement.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.609

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.345 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations61
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Palliative MedicineSame topicGastrointestinal motility and disordersFrench-language works237,207