Conceptualizing breakthrough pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of breakthrough pain (BTP) is examined through the development of a conceptual model with a long-term goal of positively impacting the management of chronic pain patients who experience BTP when hospitalized. The model is based on a 2008 Health Economic Model of Breakthrough Pain developed by Abernethy, Wheeler, and Fortner, which will be referred to as the parent model. The conceptual model of BTP, titled, Novel Conceptual Model of Breakthrough Pain (NCMBP) shares a similar structure in regards to the relationships of major constructs. Like the parent model, the NCMBP is based on three major constructs which are analyzed and explained further with associated concepts. The NCMBP is primarily concerned with the importance of a pain management plan and the endpoint result of patient-perceived analgesia. The NCMBP is viewed as a necessary foundation for continuing safe and effective pain management in the setting of a current opioid overdose epidemic in the United States. The structure and conceptual relationships of the NCMBP are preliminary and will continue to undergo revision as conduction of research is attempted to test the model.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".