MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Frequency, Predictors, and Medical Record Documentation of Chemical Coping Among Advanced Cancer Patients

2015· article· en· W2156648140 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Oncologist · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Management and Opioid Use
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMultinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer
KeywordsMedicineCoping (psychology)Medical recordConfidence intervalOdds ratioConcordancePalliative carePsychiatryInternal medicineFamily medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In this prospective study, we determined the frequency of opioid-related chemical coping among advanced cancer patients, as diagnosed by palliative medicine specialists. We also determined predictors for chemical coping and the concordance between the physician's diagnosis and documentation in the medical records. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Palliative medicine specialists evaluated and diagnosed consecutive patients seen for chemical coping. The proportion of patients identified as chemically coping was compared with the proportion documented in the medical records. Demographic data; cancer diagnosis; history of smoking; substance abuse; psychiatric disease; morphine equivalent daily dosage; Cut-down, Annoyed, Guilty, and Eye-opener (CAGE) questionnaire scores; and Edmonton Symptom Assessment System scores were also collected. RESULTS: A total of 432 patients were evaluated. Overall, 76 patients (18%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 14%-21%) were diagnosed as chemically coping. Documentation of chemical coping in the medical records was reported for only 15 patients (4%; 95% CI: 2%-6%). CAGE positivity (odds ratio [OR]: 2.89), younger age (OR: 0.97 per year), better performance status (OR: 0.68 per point), pain (OR: 1.20 per point), and well-being (OR: 1.28 per point) were found to be significant predictors of chemical coping by protocol definition. After recursive partitioning, 21 of 50 patients (42%) who were CAGE positive and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤2 were diagnosed as chemically coping. CONCLUSION: Approximately 18% of palliative care patients seen were diagnosed as chemically coping by palliative medicine specialists. The frequency of documentation in the medical records was significantly lower. Better and safer ways for physicians to assess and report chemical coping are needed. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Cancer pain is a multidimensional symptom for which opioids are the mainstay of treatment. However, opioids can have a double effect resulting in drug-seeking behaviors. Chemical coping occurs when a patient uses opioids in a nonprescribed way to cope with various stressful events. This can lead to misuse of opioids and complications including neurotoxicities, respiratory depression, and death. Proper diagnosis and documentation is needed to ensure proper management of pain and to avoid unnecessary harm. The findings of this study suggest that ∼18% of advanced cancer patients seen by a palliative care service were diagnosed as chemical coping, but only 4% were documented in the medical records.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.186

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.299 · 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