The Role of Opioids in Pain Management in Elderly Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease: A Review Article
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a global public health problem. Pain is one of the most generally experienced symptoms by CKD patients. Pain management is a key clinical activity; nonetheless, insufficient pain management by health professionals keeps it up. Opioids as pain relievers are a class of naturally-derived and synthetic medications. They act through interactions with receptors in peripheral nerves. Numerous pharmacokinetic alterations happen with aging that influence drug disposition, metabolism, and quality of life. Acetaminophen alone, or combined with low-potency opioid dose is regarded as the safest pain-relieving choice for CKD. Morphine and codeine are probably eluded in renal impairment patients and used with excessive carefulness. Tramadol, oxycodone, and hydromorphone can be used by patient monitoring, while methadone, transdermal fentanyl, and buprenorphine seem to be safe to use in older non-dialysis patients with renal impairment. Consistent with the available literature, the main aim of this review was to explore the occurrence of chronic pain and its opioid treatment in CKD patients. According to this review, more and well-made randomized controlled trials are necessary to find appropriate opioid doses and explore the occurrence of side effects.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".