How to use opioid analgesics effectively and safely. Individual choice of the opioid in patients with cancer pain from the perspective of 2022
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ENWEndNote BIBJabRef, Mendeley RISPapers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero AMA Kotlińska-Lemieszek A. How to use opioid analgesics effectively and safely. Individual choice of the opioid in patients with cancer pain from the perspective of 2022. Medycyna Paliatywna/Palliative Medicine. 2022;14(3):109-124. doi:10.5114/pm.2022.126738. APA Kotlińska-Lemieszek, A. (2022). How to use opioid analgesics effectively and safely. Individual choice of the opioid in patients with cancer pain from the perspective of 2022. Medycyna Paliatywna/Palliative Medicine, 14(3), 109-124. https://doi.org/10.5114/pm.2022.126738 Chicago Kotlińska-Lemieszek, Aleksandra. 2022. "How to use opioid analgesics effectively and safely. Individual choice of the opioid in patients with cancer pain from the perspective of 2022". Medycyna Paliatywna/Palliative Medicine 14 (3): 109-124. doi:10.5114/pm.2022.126738. Harvard Kotlińska-Lemieszek, A. (2022). How to use opioid analgesics effectively and safely. Individual choice of the opioid in patients with cancer pain from the perspective of 2022. Medycyna Paliatywna/Palliative Medicine, 14(3), pp.109-124. https://doi.org/10.5114/pm.2022.126738 MLA Kotlińska-Lemieszek, Aleksandra. "How to use opioid analgesics effectively and safely. Individual choice of the opioid in patients with cancer pain from the perspective of 2022." Medycyna Paliatywna/Palliative Medicine, vol. 14, no. 3, 2022, pp. 109-124. doi:10.5114/pm.2022.126738. Vancouver Kotlińska-Lemieszek A. How to use opioid analgesics effectively and safely. Individual choice of the opioid in patients with cancer pain from the perspective of 2022. Medycyna Paliatywna/Palliative Medicine. 2022;14(3):109-124. doi:10.5114/pm.2022.126738.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".