Observational study to analyze patterns of treatment of breakthrough dyspnea in cancer patients in clinical practice
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Although breakthrough dyspnea is very frequent in cancer patients, there are no precise recommendations for treating it. The main objective of this study was to analyze what treatments are used in clinical practice for the management of breakthrough dyspnea in cancer patients in Spain and the secondary objectives were to describe the characteristics of cancer patients with breakthrough dyspnea and the attributes of the disorder. METHODS: Cancer patients over 18 years of age, with breakthrough dyspnea and a Karnofsky performance score of ≥30, who were treated at departments of oncology in institutes across Spain were included in this cross-sectional observational study. The characteristics of breakthrough dyspnea, history of treatment, anthropometric variables, Mahler dyspnea index, Borg scale, Edmonton Symptoms Assessment Scale, and patient satisfaction with current breakthrough dyspnea treatment were assessed. RESULTS: The mean age of the 149 included patients was 66 years (95% confidence interval: 64.3 to 67.9), and 53 were females (35.6%). The mean breakthrough dyspnea intensity was 5.85 (95% confidence interval 5.48 to 6.22, Borg scale). A total of 55.1% of the first-choice treatments consisted of opioids, followed by oxygen (17.3%). A total of 119 patients (79.9%) received monotherapy for breakthrough dyspnea. Patients presenting with basal dyspnea received oxygen in a greater proportion of cases (21.1% vs 7.4%; p = 0.07). Patients with predictable dyspnea received a greater proportion of opioids (70.9% vs 44.4%; p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Opioids constitute first-line therapy for breakthrough dyspnea in routine clinical practice, though the scientific evidence supporting their use is scarce. Further information derived from controlled clinical trials is needed regarding the comparative efficacy of the different treatments in order to justify their use.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it