MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3136019090 · doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000011847

Embracing the Unknown in the Diagnosis of Traumatic Encephalopathy Syndrome

2021· letter· en· W3136019090 on OpenAlexaff
Lili‐Naz Hazrati, Nicole Schwab

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2021
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClonidineMedicineTolerabilityRefractory (planetary science)AnesthesiaPalliative careSedationRetrospective cohort studyAdverse effectSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Objectives</h3> To investigate the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous clonidine for refractory symptoms in the palliative setting. <h3>Methods</h3> A retrospective chart review of the use of subcutaneous clonidine in a single palliative care centre. We reviewed the use of clonidine since it was introduced in our locality 2½ years ago. All clinical notes, medication administration records and infusion monitoring documentation were examined to ascertain therapeutic aim, efficacy and tolerability. <h3>Results</h3> Subcutaneous clonidine was administered to 113 patients. Recipients were generally frail (median Karnofsky Score 20%) and in the last weeks of life (median survival 6 days). The the most common indications were opioid poorly responsive pain (59), agitation refractory to antipsychotics and/or benzodiazepines (18) or both (35). Symptoms appeared to improve in the majority (85/113, 75%). Some (36, 32%) required no further medication changes once clonidine was commenced. Clonidine appeared well tolerated although blood pressure was not monitored in the majority, in line with our practice to discontinue such observations in those who are nursed in bed and receiving symptom-focused care. <h3>Conclusions</h3> Subcutaneous administration of clonidine appears to be a promising alternative option for refractory symptoms in the last weeks of life. We suggest some possible next steps for further research.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.267
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurologySame topicHealthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsFrench-language works237,207