Investigating the benefits and harms of hypodermoclysis of patients in palliative care: A consecutive cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Palliative populations are at risk for dehydration which can cause discomfort, distress and cognitive symptoms. Subcutaneous hydration ('hypodermoclysis') has been used as an alternative administration route to the more invasive intravenous route, but research is lacking on its net clinical effects (harms and benefits) for palliative populations, particularly in real world settings. AIM: To quantify prospectively the net clinical effects of hypodermoclysis in palliative patients with advanced disease who required supplementary fluids. DESIGN: Multisite, multinational consecutive cohort study. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Patients receiving hypodermoclysis in an inpatient palliative care setting. RESULTS: Twenty sites contributed data for 99 patients, of which 88 had complete benefits and harms data. The most common primary target symptom for infusion was generalised weakness (18.2%), and the most common non-symptom indication was supplemental hydration (31.8%). Benefits were experienced in 33% of patients in their primary target symptom, and in any symptom in 56.8%. Harms were experienced in 38.7% of patients (42% at Grade 1). Benefits increased with higher performance status, while harms were more frequent in patients with lower performance status (Australia-modified Karnofsky performance status ⩽40). Patients in the terminal phase of their illness experienced the least benefit (15.4% in any indication only) and had more frequent harms (38%). CONCLUSIONS: Hypodermoclysis may improve certain symptoms in patients in palliative care but frequency of harms and benefits may differ at certain timepoints in the illness trajectory. Further research is needed to better delineate which patients will derive the most net clinical benefit from hypodermoclysis.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".