[Intravesical BCG-therapy: comparison of side effects of Connaught (Toronto) and Pasteur (Paris) strains].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Urologists have felt that the adverse effects of intravesical BCG-therapy have been more serious and more frequent since the use of the Connaught strain. The objective of this retrospective study was to compare the toxicity of this new strain with that previously used in France (Pasteur strain). MATERIAL AND METHODS: After endoscopic resection, 89 patients with stage Ta grade 1-2 recurrent or T1 grade 3 and/or CIS bladder tumour were treated with 6 instillations of 150 mg of BCG Pasteur from 1992 to 1996 (50 patients: group 1) or 81 mg of BCG Connaught from January 1997 to December 1998 (39 patients: group 2). Adverse effects were classified as minor, lasting less than 48 hours (bladder irritation syndrome and/or macroscopic haematuria and/or fever less than 38 degrees C), moderate (requiring symptomatic treatment, reduction of the dose or an increased interval between instillations), and major (contraindication to continuation of treatment). RESULTS: 74% of patients in group 1 presented at least one adverse effect versus 77% in group 2. The reasons for permanent discontinuation of BCG-therapy in groups 1 and 2, respectively, were as follows: malaise during instillation (1 vs 0), bladder irritation syndrome not controlled by symptomatic treatment (4 vs 5) and epididymitis (0 vs 1). Pulmonary tuberculosis was diagnosed in one patient from group 2, one year after the last instillation. The frequency and severity of adverse effects were not statistically different between the two groups. The number of patients discontinuing BCG-therapy because of severe complications was also not statistically different between the two groups. CONCLUSION: This study did not reveal any difference of toxicity between Connaught and Pasteur strain in intravesical BCG-therapy of superficial bladder tumours.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".