Role of dimethylsulfoxide for management of chemotherapy extravasation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extravasation of anthracyclines is a rare complication that can lead to severe tissue necrosis and ulceration. With conservative measures (e.g., limb elevation, cooling), ulceration may develop in 28% of patients. Topical dimethylsulfoxide is commonly suggested as an antidote. However, there are inconsistent and sometimes conflicting animal data on its efficacy and safety. Ovid Medline (1966 to April 2004) was searched using the medical subject headings of ‘Dimethyl Sulfoxide’ and ‘Extravasation of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Materials’, and limited to English language and human articles. There have been no controlled trials on dimethylsulfoxide comparing its efficacy with cooling alone. Of a total of 147 patients, ulceration was uncommon after anthracycline extravasation when patients were managed with dimethylsulfoxide with or without cooling. Dimethylsulfoxide was well tolerated, with the most common toxicities being early mild reversible burning sensation, blistering, followed later by itch, erythema and superficial scaling. Dimethylsulfoxide is probably effective in preventing ulceration in patients who may not respond to cooling alone. When applied appropriately, dimethylsulfoxide seems well tolerated, with self-limiting local irritation to be the most common adverse effect. Hence, it is reasonable to consider topical dimethylsulfoxide 99% solution when managing extravasation of anthracyclines and mitomycin.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".