MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321369197 · doi:10.1136/spcare-2023-scpsc.4

S1-4 Keynote lecture: ‘balance at the bedside’—optimizing benefits and minimizing risk through best practices

2023· article· en· W4321369197 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Russell K. Portenoy

Bibliographic record

VenueSymposium · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOpioidIntensive care medicineContext (archaeology)Adverse effectDosingAddictionCancer painRisk assessmentChronic painPalliative carePsychiatryCancerPharmacologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3></h3> For those with active cancer, particularly in the advanced phases of illness, opioids are the mainstay treatment for moderate or severe chronic pain. In this context, the potential for benefit when these drugs are used appropriately usually outweighs the risks of side effects, toxicities, and the potential for abuse or addiction. Even in the context of advanced illness, however, clinicians must balance the potential for risk and benefit during opioid therapy, assess risk, and make decisions about drug selection and dosing that minimizes the likelihood of adverse outcomes. Palliative care specialists generally endorse a similar view about pain in populations with other types of advanced illness—opioids are the first-line for chronic moderate or severe pain, but again, risk and benefit must be assessed and techniques used to minimize risk. When cancer or other serious illnesses are not advanced, the potential for adverse opioid effects over longer periods of administration may shift the approach to opioid treatment, emphasizing trials of non-opioid analgesics, concurrent treatments that may reduce opioid requirements, and when opioids are used, greater caution in the selection of drugs and dosing. This approach to risk assessment and techniques to minimize risk applies to all adverse opioid effects, but the most important consideration in the U.S. and some other countries is the risk of abuse and addiction. This lecture begins with a brief discussion of the pharmacological toxicities associated with opioids and an approach to risk management that responds to side effects that are commonly recognized, such as constipation and mental clouding, and those that are less often assessed, such as neuroendocrine effects. The focus then shifts to drug abuse and addiction. The relevant phenomena are described and a stepwise approach is introduced for risk minimization. This approach is appropriately considered whenever opioids are used, including the context of advanced illness. It is a type of universal precautions based on stratifying the risk of abuse and addiction, making informed decision making about opioid selection and dosing, monitoring drug-related outcomes over time, and managing problematic behaviors if they occur.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.683
Threshold uncertainty score0.552

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.127
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designNot applicable
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 topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207