Opioids for dyspnoea in interstitial lung disease: does the sequence and timing of therapy matter?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extract We read the report of Ferreira et al. [1] entitled “Regular, low-dose, sustained-release morphine for persisting breathlessness in interstitial lung disease: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial” with great interest and would like to share our experience and address some limitations of this prospective trial. Dyspnoea assessment and management is undoubtedly challenging in interstitial lung disease (ILD). The evidence base for appropriate therapies is limited but experts believe opioids are efficacious in ILD-related dyspnoea and recommend them as part of a stepwise management approach guided by dyspnoea severity assessment. This stepwise approach includes: 1) optimising the underlying aetiology, 2) utilising nonpharmacological interventions (NPIs) (in ILD, this would include oxygen) and 3) adding opioids for dyspnoea refractory to NPI [2, 3].
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".