Canadian Pain Society Conference May 12 – 15, 2010, Calgary, Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Learning Objectives: 1. Review the pathophysiology and characteristics of breakthrough cancer pain, its prevalence and its distinction from baseline pain.2. Discuss the current management of breakthrough cancer pain in Canada, its strengths and its limitations. List attributes of a new class of drugs -rapid onset opioids -and outline how they are used in clinical practice.BRIEF DESCRIPTION: Breakthrough cancer pain is phenomenologically distinct from persistent chronic cancer pain, and requires different management strategies.While baseline cancer pain is typically fairly steady, breakthrough cancer pain is commonly sudden in onset, typically reaching peak intensity after about 3 minutes.Episodes of breakthrough cancer pain can be predictable, but in approximately 80% of patients, breakthrough pain occurs unpredictably.(1) Physicians treating cancer patients need to undertake a proper assessment of pain in order to ensure appropriate pain management.Results from one survey suggested that only 25% of patients with breakthrough pain are satisfied with pain control compared to 78% of patients without breakthrough pain.(1) Difficulties in identifying breakthrough pain, and the availability of new emerging therapy justify the need for attention to gaps in current diagnosis and treatment, and implementation of measures to reduce these gaps. 1A
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".