MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2296740459 · doi:10.1155/2011/434298

Canadian Guideline for Safe and Effective Use of Opioids for Chronic Non‐Cancer Pain: Implications for Pain Physicians

2011· article· en· W2296740459 on OpenAlexaffabout
Meldon Kahan, Angela Mailis, Eldon Tunks

Bibliographic record

VenuePain Research and Management · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOpioid Use Disorder Treatment
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalSt Joseph's Health CentreMcMaster UniversityCanadian Memorial Chiropractic CollegeUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGuidelineMedicineChronic painFamily medicinePublic healthCancer painPain medicineAddictionAlternative medicineHealth careAddiction medicinePsychiatryNursingAnesthesiologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

C hronic pain is a serious public health concern, causing widespread suffering and disability, and increased health care costs (1).Potent opioids have become a mainstay of chronic pain treatment, and both the number of patients taking opioids and the mean dose per patient have increased substantially in North America.Unfortunately, this has been accompanied by marked increases in opioid-related deaths, diversion, misuse and addiction, generating concern among the public and the medical profession.For a guideline to be credible, it should be based on a comprehensive search of controlled trials and other studies, supplemented by the perspectives of experienced clinicians and opinion leaders.It should address questions important to public health and provide practical guidance to clinicians.These goals have been achieved in the recently published "Canadian Guideline for Safe and Effective Use of Opioids for Chronic Non-Cancer Pain" (2).Under the umbrella of the Federation of Medical Regulatory Authorities of Canada, the National Opioid Use Guideline Group was created in 2008 to collaborate on guideline development and implementation.A core research group was formed, which conducted a systematic review of the effectiveness of opioids for chronic noncancer pain (CNCP), as well as focused reviews on topics such as medical complications of opioids and use of opioids in specific populations.The core group wrote an initial draft of the guideline.A 49-member panel that included physicians from family medicine, physiatry, neurology and addiction medicine, and various other health care providers, reviewed the draft and provided feedback through a structured approach.All major regions of Canada were represented on the panel, which included members of national organizations such as the Canadian Pain Society.The panel achieved consensus on 24 recommendations.Some highlights of the guideline are provided below.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.057
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.192
Threshold uncertainty score0.386

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.057
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0090.002
Research integrity0.0140.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations25
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePain Research and ManagementSame topicOpioid Use Disorder TreatmentFrench-language works237,207