Self-administered nitrous oxide for the management of incident pain in terminally ill patients: a blinded case series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The treatment of incident pain in terminally ill cancer patients receiving long-term opioid therapy remains a challenge. Self-administered inhaled nitrous oxide has been used for short-term analgesia in this setting, with mixed results. It is unclear whether nitrous oxide exhibits cross-tolerance with opioids, and there is the possibility of a strong placebo effect in previous unblinded reports. We report on a double-blind crossover case series, in which seven patients received either nitrous oxide/oxygen or a placebo air/oxygen mixture on each day of a two-day trial. Outcome indices were obtained before, during and after each use of the gas for anticipated incident pain. The patient population was very heterogeneous with respect to disease, pain scores and concurrent treatments. Nitrous oxide was beneficial during incidents in five of seven patients; the remaining two patients reported an overall preference for the nitrous oxide day. We conclude that a trial of self-administered inhaled nitrous oxide should be considered in patients with difficult incident 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".