Terapia tópica para el tratamiento del dolor en heridas neoplásicas malignas: protocolo de revisión de alcance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A total of 14.5% of cancer patients develop malignant neoplastic wounds (MNW), characterised as friable, exudative, fetid, bleeding, and painful. Some studies report that all patients with MNW experience pain, but there is lack of scientific evidence to support their treatment. OBJECTIVE: To map and examine the existing evidence on topical therapies to manage pain in adult patients with MNW. METHOD: A scoping review protocol was designed, according to the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology. The databases CINAHL, LILACS, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane, NICE, Scopus, JBISRIR and the grey literature, for searching published and unpublished studies in English, Portuguese and Spanish. The selection will be made by at least two reviewers. The summary of the results will be narrative, with graphs and tables. Qualitative and quantitative studies and reviews will be included, describing the use of topical pain therapies in patients with MNW. CONCLUSION: This study will allow to classify and discuss the available topical therapies, and to recommend future primary studies.
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 | 0.057 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.004 |
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".