Embracing the Unknown in the Diagnosis of Traumatic Encephalopathy Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives To investigate the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous clonidine for refractory symptoms in the palliative setting. Methods 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. Results 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. Conclusions 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 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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".