MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964560358 · doi:10.1159/000226966

Acute and Delayed Emesis after Cisplatin-Based Regimen: Description and Prevention

2009· article· en· W1964560358 on OpenAlexaff
Christophe Louvet, Andre Lorange, François Letendre, Raymond Beaulieu, Harry M. Pretty, Yves Courchesne, Jean Neemeh, Marc Monte, Jean Latreille

Bibliographic record

VenueOncology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNausea and vomiting management
Canadian institutionsHôtel-Dieu de MontréalHotel Dieu Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNauseaMedicineMetoclopramideVomitingDexamethasoneProchlorperazineAnesthesiaRegimenLorazepamOndansetronChemotherapySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lorazepam, dexamethasone and high-dose metoclopramide were given to 54 patients to prevent emesis induced by cisplatin (50-120 mg/m2) on day 1, while prochlorperazine and dexamethasone were administered on days 2 and 3 for control of delayed emesis. Nausea and emesis were recorded from day 1 to day 8. This combination was well tolerated. Prevention on day 1 was complete for 72% of patients and satisfactory (less than or equal to 2 emeses on day 1) in 85%. From days 2 to 8, no emesis, less than or equal to 2 and greater than 2 episodes occurred in 70, 11 and 19%, respectively. Overall control (days 1-8) was complete in 55.5% and satisfactory (less than or equal to 2 emeses on day 1 and/or less than or equal to 2 emeses from days 2 to 8) in 74%. Delayed emesis started on days 2-5. Mean duration was 2.6 days. Delayed nausea or emesis were more frequent when emesis occurred on day 1. Based on data previously reported and on these observations, better ways to prevent delayed events are discussed. Further trials must record systematically delayed side effects.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations16
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOncologySame topicNausea and vomiting managementFrench-language works237,207