INCREASING EXPERTISE IN PATIENT-CENTRED BREAKTHROUGH CANCER PAIN MANAGEMENT USING RAPID-ONSET OPIOIDS: FOCUS ON SUBLINGUAL FENTANYL CITRATE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cancer pain represents a very frequent symptom in cancer patients; it is one of the factors which most impacts their quality of life, and clinicians often experience issues regarding its management. This study focuses on Breakthrough cancer pain which is defined as a transient episode of severe pain in a context of adequately controlled background pain. It has a higher prevalence in advanced disease and in palliative care settings; however, it is present throughout all phases of cancer treatment and follow-up. It should not be considered as a single entity, as it is classified as spontaneous, incident volitional or incident non-volitional. To allow a proper diagnosis, clinicians may leverage specific useful tools, such as the Breakthrough Pain Assessment Tool, and patient-reported outcome measures, using a patient-centred care approach. Breakthrough cancer pain treatment requires Rapid-Onset Opioids, namely rapid-active fentanyl formulations having an onset of effect of less than 15 minutes and a short duration of effect. There are different Rapid-Onset Opioids with different routes of administrations which clinicians can choose according to patient characteristics and preferences. For instance, sublingual fentanyl citrate has an innovative formulation which provides a very rapid onset of action, approximately 6 minutes, giving rapid pain relief; intranasal Rapid-Onset Opioids could be preferable in patients with mucositis or with xerostomia. Opioid use in background cancer pain and Breakthrough cancer pain are a cornerstone of treatment. Perspective: In the treatment of cancer patients, pain management is of paramount importance, given its impact on the quality of life. A correct diagnosis of Breakthrough cancer pain and proper framing of the patient suffering from it allows for the best management of this issue by using Rapid-Onset Opioids.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".