MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1601812786 · doi:10.1111/vco.12148

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

2015· article· en· W1601812786 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueVeterinary and Comparative Oncology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicSafe Handling of Antineoplastic Drugs
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersUniversity of Georgia
KeywordsChemotherapyMedicineSpecialtyTransfer (computing)UsabilityAnesthesiaSurgeryComputer scienceFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 &lt; 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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.608
Threshold uncertainty score0.594

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.352
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.113 · 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