Incidence of platinum‐induced ototoxicity in pediatric patients in Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The antineoplastic agents cisplatin and carboplatin are widely-used and highly-effective against a variety of pediatric cancers. Unfortunately, ototoxicity is a frequently encountered side effect of platinum-based chemotherapy. There is currently no treatment or prevention for platinum-induced ototoxicity and development of hearing loss may lead to devastating consequences on the quality of life of pediatric cancer survivors. The objective of this study is to determine the incidence of platinum-induced ototoxicity in a large series of pediatric patients and to evaluate the incidence of progression of ototoxicity after completion of treatment. PROCEDURES: A retrospective chart review of pediatric patients treated with cisplatin or carboplatin between 2000 and 2012 was conducted. The incidence of ototoxicity was determined based on the American-Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) criteria and severity was based on the Chang classification. RESULTS: Four hundred and sixty-six patients received platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were excluded due to congenital hearing loss (n = 1) and insufficient data for calculating the platinum dose (n = 24) or for assessing ototoxicity (n = 135). Three hundred and six patients were included in the analysis. Post-chemotherapy ototoxicity was detected in 148 (48%) patients, and clinically-significant ototoxicity was present in 91 (30%). In addition, based on the ASHA criteria, 48% of patients (97/204) with long-term follow-up had further deterioration of their hearing after completion of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Ototoxicity following chemotherapy with cisplatin or carboplatin is common and can frequently progress after the completion of treatment. Long-term follow-up is strongly recommended.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".