Effectiveness of a nursing support program for patients with recurrent ovarian cancer receiving pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (Caelyx®/Doxil®)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) has become the preferred alternative for ovarian cancer patients who have failed platinum-based therapy, but side effects, such as palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (PPE), may lead to sub-optimal drug exposure and treatment discontinuation. A prospective Canadian multicentre open-label study evaluated the effects of a nurse-administered education and support program on treatment adherence and tolerability in 112 women with recurrent ovarian cancer. Subjects received an average of four four-week PLD cycles, the recommended number of courses required to evaluate the efficacy from PLD. Side effects were common, but 75% of patients were able to complete > 3 cycles and 59% completed > 4 cycles of PLD chemotherapy. With proactive nursing intervention, the incidence of PLD-associated grade three-four toxicities such as PPE and mucositis was substantially decreased. Nursing intervention may allow more patients to receive chemotherapy on schedule, thus reproducing the conditions of the clinical study in which the efficacy of the drug has been established.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".