Concordance between the chang and the International Society of Pediatric Oncology (<scp>SIOP</scp>) ototoxicity grading scales in patients treated with cisplatin for medulloblastoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reporting ototoxicity is frequently complicated by use of various ototoxicity criteria. The International Society of Pediatric Oncology (SIOP) ototoxicity grading scale was recently proposed for standardized use in reporting hearing loss outcomes across institutions. The aim of this study was to evaluate the concordance between the Chang and SIOP ototoxicity grading scales. Differences between the two scales were identified and the implications these differences may have in the clinical setting were discussed. PROCEDURES: Audiological evaluations were reviewed for 379 patients with newly diagnosed medulloblastoma (ages 3-21 years). Each patient was enrolled on one of two St. Jude clinical protocols that included craniospinal radiation therapy and four courses of 75 mg/m(2) cisplatin chemotherapy. The latest audiogram conducted 5.5-24.5 months post-protocol treatment initiation was graded using the Chang and SIOP ototoxicity criteria. Clinically significant hearing loss was defined as Chang grade ≥2a and SIOP ≥2. Hearing loss was considered serious (requiring a hearing aid) at the level of Chang grade ≥2b and SIOP ≥3. RESULTS: A strong concordance was observed between the Chang and SIOP ototoxicity scales (Stuart's tau-c statistic = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.86, 0.91). Among those patients diagnosed with serious hearing loss, the two scales were in good agreement. However, the scales deviated from one another in classifying patients with less serious or no hearing loss. CONCLUSIONS: Although discrepancies between the Chang and SIOP ototoxicity scales exist primarily for patients with no or minimal hearing loss, the scales share a strong concordance overall.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".