Patient-Controlled Methylphenidate for Cancer Fatigue: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness of patient-controlled methylphenidate as compared with placebo in cancer patients with fatigue, as measured by the Functional Assessment for Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with a fatigue score of at least 4 on a scale of 0 to 10 (0 = no fatigue, 10 = worst possible fatigue) and hemoglobin level of at least 10 g/dL were included. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 5 mg methylphenidate or placebo every 2 hours as needed (maximum of four capsules a day), for 7 days. Patients completed a daily diary including study drug record and fatigue intensity. A research nurse telephoned patients daily to assess toxicity and fatigue level. All patients were offered open-label methylphenidate for 4 weeks. FACIT-F and the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) were assessed at baseline, and days 8, 15, and 36. The FACIT-F fatigue subscore on day 8 was considered the primary end point. RESULTS: Of 112 patients randomly assigned, 52 patients in the methylphenidate and 53 in the placebo group were assessable for analysis. Fatigue intensity improved significantly on day 8 in both the methylphenidate and placebo groups. However, there was no significant difference in fatigue improvement by FACIT-F (P = .31) or ESAS (P = .14) between groups. In open-label phase, fatigue intensity maintained low as compared with baseline. No significant toxicities were observed. CONCLUSION: Both methylphenidate and placebo resulted in significant symptom improvement. Methylphenidate was not significantly superior to placebo after 1 week of treatment. Longer study duration is justified. The role of daily telephone calls from a research nurse should be explored as a palliative care intervention.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".