Morphine to relieve exertional dyspnoea in COPD: myth, dream or reality?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dyspnoea, “the subjective experience of breathing discomfort that consists of qualitatively distinct sensations that vary in intensity” [1], is ever present in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and affects almost all aspects of their daily lives [2]: up 60% of patients have limitations in normal physical activity and more than a third are restricted in family activities [2]. Dyspnoea is usually the earliest and most troublesome complaint for which these patients seek medical attention. As the underlying disease advances, dyspnoea progresses relentlessly, invariably leading to a gradual decrease in activity levels and associated skeletal muscle deconditioning and impoverished quality of life [2]. Dyspnoea also has strong prognostic value for mortality: stronger than the forced expiratory volume in 1 s in patients with COPD or angina in patients with heart disease [3, 4]. Opioids show promise in managing exertional dyspnoea; safety of widespread use in COPD patients remains unproven
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
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".