MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2183751394 · doi:10.1177/070674370404900209

Bupropion Sustained Release Treatment Reduces Fatigue in Cancer Patients

2004· article· en· W2183751394 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Jodi Cullum, Agnieszka E Wojciechowski, Guy Pelletier, Jennifer S. Simpson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer, Stress, Anesthesia, and Immune Response
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBupropionMedicineAntidepressantCancer-related fatigueDepression (economics)CancerPsychiatryInternal medicineAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate that bupropion sustained release (SR) can reduce the symptoms of fatigue experienced by cancer patients. METHOD: We studied an open-label case series of outpatients with fatigue referred for psychiatric assessment from a tertiary care cancer centre. Inclusion criteria were the presence of fatigue or depression with marked fatigue. Clinical status was assessed using the Global Clinical Improvement scale. RESULTS: Fifteen subjects with various cancer sites and psychiatric diagnoses were treated with bupropion SR (modal dose 150 mg) for up to 2 years. Most (13 of 15) saw improvement. Thirteen patients had minor, expectable side effects, and 10 patients were able to continue with bupropion for an extended time. All subjects who improved showed improvement within 2 to 4 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first report that shows bupropion SR can reduce fatigue in cancer patients. Controlled studies with more homogeneous samples would be necessary to establish the efficacy of this intervention. Further studies should address whether this effect of bupropion is separate from its action as an antidepressant.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations85
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of PsychiatrySame topicCancer, Stress, Anesthesia, and Immune ResponseFrench-language works237,207