MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W27113779 · doi:10.5055/jom.2006.0033

Single-dose extended-release epidural morphine for pain after hip arthroplasty

2006· article· en· W27113779 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Gavin Martin, Maximilian W.B. Hartmannsgruber, Edward T. Riley, Garen Manvelian

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Opioid Management · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSchool of Medicine, Stanford UniversitySchool of Medicine, New York UniversityYork University
KeywordsMedicineMorphineAnesthesiaHip arthroplastyHip painArthroplastyTotal hip arthroplastyOpioidPain managementSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This randomized, double-blind study compared the safety and efficacy of a new single-dose extended-release epidural morphine (EREM) formulation for postoperative pain following hip arthroplasty. Patients were administered a single dose of EREM (10, 20, or 30 mg, n = 93) or a single epidural dose of placebo (n = 27) before surgery and general anesthesia. Following surgery, patients had access to fentanyl with the use of intravenous patient-controlled analgesia. Postoperative fentanyl use, time to first postoperative fentanyl use, pain intensity at rest and with activity, patient ratings of pain control, and adverse events were recorded. Compared with placebo-treated patients, single-dose EREM patients used less total supplemental fentanyl (p < or = 0.049), had a longer time to first fentanyl use (p < 0.001), and were less likely to use any supplemental fentanyl (p < or = 0.042). EREM-treated patients reported lower pain intensity for up to 48 hours postdose compared with placebo-treated patients. Single-dose EREM was effective for postoperative pain relief for up to 48 hours following hip arthroplasty, with a safety and tolerability profile consistent with that of other epidurally administered opioids.

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 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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.365
Threshold uncertainty score0.764

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations16
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Opioid ManagementSame topicAnesthesia and Pain ManagementFrench-language works237,207