Recommendations for Age-Appropriate Testing, Timing, and Frequency of Audiologic Monitoring During Childhood Cancer Treatment
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
IMPORTANCE: Ototoxicity is an irreversible direct and late effect of certain childhood cancer treatments. Audiologic surveillance during therapy as part of the supportive care pathway enables early detection of hearing loss, decision-making about ongoing cancer treatment, and, when applicable, the timely use of audiologic interventions. Pediatric oncologic clinical practice and treatment trials have tended to be driven by tumor type and tumor-specific working groups. Internationally accepted standardized recommendations for monitoring hearing during treatment have not previously been agreed on. OBJECTIVE: To provide standard recommendations on hearing loss monitoring during childhood cancer therapy for clinical practice. METHODS: An Ototoxicity Task Force was formed under the umbrella of the International Society of Paediatric Oncology, consisting of international audiologists, otolaryngologists, and leaders in the field of relevant pediatric oncology tumor groups. Consensus meetings conducted by experts were organized, aimed at providing standardized recommendations on age-directed testing, timing, and frequency of monitoring during cancer treatment based on literature and consensus. Consensus statements were prepared by the core group, adapted following several videoconferences, and finally agreed on by the expert panel. FINDINGS: The consensus reached was that children who receive ototoxic cancer treatment (platinum agents, cranial irradiation, and/or brain surgery) require a baseline case history, monitoring of their middle ear and inner ear function, and assessment of tinnitus at each audiologic follow-up. As a minimum, age-appropriate testing should be performed before and at the end of treatment. Ideally, audiometry with counseling before each cisplatin cycle should be considered in the context of the individual patient, specific disease, feasibility, and available resources. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This is an international multidisciplinary consensus report providing standardized supportive care recommendations on hearing monitoring in children undergoing potentially ototoxic cancer treatment. The recommendations are intended to improve the care of children with cancer and facilitate comparative research on the timing and development of hearing loss caused by different cancer treatment regimens.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».