MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321369013 · doi:10.1136/spcare-2023-scpsc.3

S1-3 Three examples of science translation to practice: opioid rotation, management of breakthrough pain, role of methadone

2023· article· en· W4321369013 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Éduardo Bruera

Bibliographic record

VenueSymposium · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Management and Opioid Use
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpiateMedicineOpioidMethadoneMorphineChronic painAnalgesicCancer painAnesthesiaPharmacologyReceptorInternal medicinePsychiatryCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3></h3> Opiate analgesics continue to be the most effective drugs for the management of cancer-related pain. These drugs mainly work by binding to the mu opioid receptor in multiple areas along the central nervous system. For many years, the clinical management of pain using opiate analgesics involved opioid dose escalation. This was primarily due to the fact that all opiates were perceived as sharing the same mechanism of action and binding site. It was therefore considered—unnecessary to change from one opiate to another. Our team initially observed that in patients with developed opiate-induced neurotoxicity, changing the type of opioid was associated with a rapid and dramatic reduction in neurotoxicity. It also became clear that, paradoxically, patients who underwent rotation required a lower opiate dose to achieve the same or better analgesia. These initial clinical findings were confirmed by other groups and later followed by research showing that there is considerable heterogeneity in mu receptors, opioid-induced hyperalgesia, and neurotoxic opioid metabolites. Breakthrough pain has been described as the presence of brief periods of uncontrolled pain in patients who otherwise have good pain control on a regular opiate analgesic. The initial management of cancer-related pain included the use of opiate analgesics only as needed. The emergence of extended-release opiates changed that practice to regular use in order to maintain a constant blood level. Findings from our team in clinical studies led to a better understanding that combination of a regular opioid plus an intermittent immediate-release opioid was necessary, since the majority of patients experience breakthrough pain. Further research by our team has found that 90% of patients are able to achieve excellent breakthrough pain control with oral opiate analgesics, making the need for rapid opioids such as transmucosal, buccal, or intranasal fentanyl unnecessary in the vast majority of patients. Methadone is an old synthetic opioid agonist that combines mu binding with NMDA antagonist properties. Initial attempts to use methadone as an analgesic during the 1960s and the 1970s failed, mainly due to severe toxicity when other opioids were replaced by methadone at excessively high equal analgesic dosages. Our team started to use methadone in carefully selected cases of refractory pain in an inpatient palliative care unit setting. These daily titrations allowed us to learn that while the opiate dose ratio for all other opiate agonists was linear and flat, in the case of methadone the opiate dose ratio became progressively more potent as patients received a higher MEDD of the previous opioid. This knowledge allowed for safer titration and rotation to methadone, resulting in better management of refractory pain.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.466
Threshold uncertainty score0.408

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSymposiumSame topicPain Management and Opioid UseFrench-language works237,207