Treatment time, ease of use and cost associated with use of Equashield™, <scp>PhaSeal</scp><sup>®</sup>, or no closed system transfer device for administration of cancer chemotherapy to a dog model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This prospective experimental simulation study evaluated the efficiency, ease of use (EOU) and cost of administering chemotherapy with two closed system transfer devices (CSTD, Equashield™ and PhaSeal®) and no CSTD. Forty‐six veterinary technicians (VT) working in oncology specialty practices were timed during chemotherapy administration simulated with water and a model canine limb 10 times with each system and with no CSTD. EOU and likelihood of recommending each system were rated by VT using visual analog scales. Costs were obtained from veterinary distributors. Administration was fastest with Equashield™ (P = 0.0003), but the difference was not enough to affect case flow. Equashield™ was easier to use than PhaSeal® or no CSTD (P = 0.002), however VT recommended both CSTD more strongly than no CSTD (P < 0.0001). Equashield™ cost less than PhaSeal® but was sold only in bulk quantities. CSTD did not decrease efficiency in administering chemotherapy and were readily accepted by VT.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".