MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4397011150 · doi:10.1200/jco.23.02639

Methylphenidate Versus Placebo for Treating Fatigue in Patients With Advanced Cancer: Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter, Placebo-Controlled Trial

2024· article· en· W4397011150 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Patrick Stone, Ollie Minton, Alison Richardson, Peter Buckle, Zinat E. Enayat, Louise Marston, Nick Freemantle

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institutes of HealthUniversity of TorontoNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchPrincess Margaret Cancer Foundation
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboMethylphenidateAdverse effectClinical endpointInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialAnesthesiaAttention deficit hyperactivity disorderPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE To compare effects and side effects of 6 weeks of individually dose-titrated methylphenidate or placebo on fatigue in palliative care patients with advanced cancer. METHODS This is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial. Eligible patients had advanced incurable cancer and fatigue >3/10. Principal exclusions were hypertension; psychiatric, cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, renal, liver, or blood disorders; substance dependency; and epilepsy. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 methylphenidate or placebo starting at 5 mg twice daily. Dose of methylphenidate/placebo was titrated once per week, over 6 weeks, up to a maximum of 20 mg three times daily. Trial ended at 10 weeks. Primary outcome was the difference in Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue (FACIT-F) scores between groups at 6 ± 2 weeks. Secondary outcomes included adverse effects, quality of life, and mood. RESULTS One hundred sixty-two patients (73 men; mean, 65.8; standard deviation [SD], 10.3 years) were randomly assigned, and three were excluded from analysis. Seventy-seven were allocated placebo (baseline FACIT-F = 22 [SD, 10]); 82 were allocated methylphenidate (FACIT-F = 20 [SD, 9]). After 6 ± 2 weeks, FACIT-F scores were 1.97 points (95% CI, –0.95 to 4.90; P = .186) higher (better) on methylphenidate than placebo. Across 10 weeks of the study, FACIT-F was nominally higher in the methylphenidate group versus placebo (Diff, 2.20 [95% CI, 0.39 to 4.01]), but this did not reach the minimally clinically important difference (5-points). At 6 weeks, there were no differences between groups in quality-of-life or symptom domains except for depression scores (nominally reduced in the methylphenidate group: Diff, –1.35 [95% CI, –2.41 to –0.30]). There were no differences in mortality or serious adverse events. CONCLUSION After 6 ± 2 weeks of treatment, methylphenidate was not superior to placebo for treating fatigue in advanced cancer. Methylphenidate was safe and well-tolerated.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.362 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicCancer survivorship and care→French-language works237,207→