Updates in opioid and nonopioid treatment for chronic breathlessness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Chronic breathlessness is a troublesome symptom experienced by people with advanced malignant and nonmalignant disease. Disease-directed therapies are often insufficient in the management of chronic breathlessness. Therefore, pharmacological and nonpharmacological breathlessness-specific interventions should be considered for select patients. RECENT FINDINGS: There is some evidence to support the use of low-dose opioids (≤30 mg morphine equivalents per day) for the relief of breathlessness in the short term. However, additional studies are needed to understand the efficacy of opioids for chronic breathlessness in the long term.Nonopioid therapies, including inspiratory muscle training, fan-to-face therapy, L-menthol and inhaled nebulized furosemide show some promise for the relief of breathlessness in advanced disease. There is insufficient evidence to support the use of anxiolytics and benzodiazepines and cannabis for chronic breathlessness. SUMMARY: More research is needed to identify therapies for the management of chronic breathlessness.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".