Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dyspnea is a symptom commonly experienced by cancer patients that causes significant suffering, worsens throughout a patient's disease trajectory, and can be more difficult to manage than other symptoms. Assessment of dyspnea is best accomplished by a subjective description; physiologic measures are only weakly correlated with the patient's experience. It is important to consider a wide range of possible malignant and nonmalignant causes of dyspnea in cancer patients and to correct underlying causes where possible. For patients with refractory dyspnea, opioids are a safe and effective treatment. Benzodiazepines can be considered, but the evidence for their use is weak. Supplemental oxygen is beneficial if patients are hypoxemic, or if they have concurrent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Nonpharmacologic strategies such as fan therapy, exercise programs, and pulmonary rehabilitation can also be beneficial. One important diagnosis to consider in all cancer patients is venous thromboembolism. Prompt evaluation and treatment are vital to improving symptoms and outcomes for patients. Although dyspnea is common and potentially debilitating in cancer patients, it can be effectively managed with a structured approach to rule out reversible causes while concurrently treating the patient using appropriate therapeutic strategies.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".