MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156254663 · doi:10.4103/0970-9185.117045

Neuraxial opioid-induced pruritus: An update

2013· review· en· W2156254663 on OpenAlex
Kamal Kumar, Samyukta Singh

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatology and Skin Diseases
Canadian institutionsVictoria HospitalWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care medicineMEDLINEOpioidSystematic reviewRandomized controlled trialClinical trialSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pruritus is a troublesome side-effect of neuraxial (epidural and intrathecal) opioids. Sometimes it may be more unpleasant than pain itself. The prevention and treatment still remains a challenge. A variety of medications with different mechanisms of action have been used for the prevention and treatment of opioid-induced pruritus, with mixed results. The aim of this article is to review the current body of literature and summarize the current understanding of the mechanisms and the pharmacological therapies available to manage opioid-induced pruritus. The literature source of this review was obtained via PubMed, Medline and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews until 2012. The search results were limited to the randomized controlled trials, systemic reviews and non-systemic reviews.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.818
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.159
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.339 · 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