MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3043361998 · doi:10.5114/ait.2020.96018

Review of the Transitional Pain Service as a method of postoperative opioid weaning and a service aimed at minimizing the risk of chronic post-surgical pain

2020· review· en· W3043361998 on OpenAlexaffabout
John S. Mikhaeil, Kennedy Ayoo, Hance Clarke, Marcin Wąsowicz, Alexander Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueAnaesthesiology Intensive Therapy · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePostoperative painWeaningService (business)OpioidAnesthesiaIntensive care medicinePhysical therapyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Opioid use and prescribing have become a subject of increasing focus and scrutiny. The ongoing "opioid epidemic" in North America has further increased interest in this area. In patients presenting for surgery, the prescribing of opioids during and following admission to hospital is commonplace and has been identified as a potential contributor to the growing opioid problem in North America. This review aims to present the timeline of the "opioid epidemic" as well as to introduce the concept of a "Transitional Pain Service". The Transitional Pain Service is a multidisciplinary service originating at Toronto General Hospital that employs a multi-faceted approach to monitoring opioid use after discharge from surgery, and aims to safely wean patients from opioids while maintaining effective pain management. This approach and its results will be discussed in this review.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations46
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnaesthesiology Intensive TherapySame topicAnesthesia and Pain ManagementFrench-language works237,207