Mortality in a Heterogeneous Population of Low‐Risk Febrile Neutropenic Patients Treated Initially with Cefazolin and Tobramycin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: At Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto, Ontario, the recommended empiric regimen for febrile neutropenia has been cefazolin and tobramycin for at least 25 years. However, we had no objective data to reassure us that patient mortality had not increased over the past five years. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of 48 episodes occurring in 44 patients admitted for the treatment of febrile neutropenia secondary to chemotherapy in 2002, and initially managed with cefazolin and tobramycin was conducted. Prospective data from 48 episodes in 2007 had previously been collected. Patients who developed febrile neutropenia while in hospital were excluded. The primary objective of the present study was to compare the all-cause mortality in 2007 with that from 2002. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between the groups (P>0.05). All-cause mortality in 2007 was 8.3% (four of 48) compared with 10.4% (five of 48) in 2002 (P=1). All deaths occurred in patients considered to be at high risk according to the Talcott score. CONCLUSION: Mortality has not increased in the past five years with the use of empiric cefazolin and tobramycin for the treatment of patients admitted with febrile neutropenia at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre. Rates are comparable with those reported in the literature for similar patients. The results of the present study provide reassurance that the regimen continues to be effective for lower-risk febrile neutropenic patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".