MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Analgesic Effects of Topical Methadone

2005· article· en· W2050450404 on OpenAlexaff
Romayne Gallagher, Douglas R. Arndt, Krista L. Hunt

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Journal of Pain · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicWound Healing and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEscharMethadoneAnesthesiaAnalgesicPain managementOpioidMorphinePain reliefSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Topical morphine has been used on open wounds for pain management, but has a variable duration of action not suitable for palliative dressing changes. The objective of this study is to find an opioid and delivery method that would provide long-lasting pain relief between dressing changes. Methadone powder (100 mg) was mixed in Stomahesive powder (10 g) and sprinkled on the open wound once daily at the time of dressing change. Four cases are presented with varying results using the methadone/Stomahesive mixture. Exudative wounds with exposed tissue work best, whereas dry wounds with eschar show less response. Topical methadone powder can be effective for pain relief in open, exudative wounds with little eschar. Further research questions are raised.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.374
Threshold uncertainty score0.232

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.372 · 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

Citations38
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Journal of PainSame topicWound Healing and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207