MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Randomized Controlled Trial of Oral Docusate in Patients on Hospice

2025· book-chapter· en· W4406987096 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPathogenesis and Treatment of Hiccups
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This trial compared a bowel regimen of docusate + senna to placebo + senna among people admitted to inpatient hospice receiving opioid analgesics. The study found no significant differences in stool frequency, volume, or consistency when comparing the 2 groups. There was no statistical difference in the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale between the groups. While this study is not definitive and should be interpreted with caution, clinicians can use these findings to scrutinize the routine use of docusate to prevent or treat opioid-induced constipation. Avoiding or deprescribing docusate when not beneficial can reduce the pill burden on patients and caregivers and focus scarce hospice resources on more effective interventions to prevent constipation.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.836

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPathogenesis and Treatment of HiccupsFrench-language works237,207