MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1948056367 · doi:10.1586/17474086.2015.1049594

Supportive medical care for children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia in low- and middle-income countries

2015· review· en· W1948056367 on OpenAlexaff
Francesco Ceppi, Federico Antillón, C. Pacheco, Courtney Sullivan, Catherine G. Lam, Scott C. Howard, Valentino Conter

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Hematology · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Lymphoblastic Leukemia research
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of TorontoSickKids Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care medicineLymphoblastic LeukemiaAnemiaPalliative careTumor lysis syndromeSupportive psychotherapyHealth carePediatricsLeukemiaInternal medicineNursingChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the last two decades, remarkable progress in the treatment of children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia has been achieved in many low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), but survival rates remain significantly lower than those in high-income countries. Inadequate supportive care and consequent excess mortality from toxicity are important causes of treatment failure for children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia in LMIC. This article summarizes practical supportive care recommendations for healthcare providers practicing in LMIC, starting with core approaches in oncology nursing care, management of tumor lysis syndrome and mediastinal masses, nutritional support, use of blood products for anemia and thrombocytopenia, and palliative care. Prevention and treatment of infectious diseases are described in a parallel paper.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.342 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of HematologySame topicAcute Lymphoblastic Leukemia researchFrench-language works237,207