Time to antibiotics and outcomes in cancer patients with febrile neutropenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Febrile neutropenia is an oncologic emergency. The timing of antibiotics administration in patients with febrile neutropenia may result in adverse outcomes. Our study aims to determine time-to- antibiotic administration in patients with febrile neutropenia, and its relationship with length of hospital stay, intensive care unit monitoring, and hospital mortality. METHODS: The study population was comprised of adult cancer patients with febrile neutropenia who were hospitalized, at a tertiary care hospital, between January 2010 and December 2011. Using Multination Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) risk score, the study cohort was divided into high and low risk groups. A multivariate regression analysis was performed to assess relationship between time-to- antibiotic administration and various outcome variables. RESULTS: One hundred and five eligible patients with median age of 60 years (range: 18-89) and M:F of 43:62 were identified. Thirty-seven (35%) patients were in MASCC high risk group. Median time-to- antibiotic administration was 2.5 hrs (range: 0.03-50) and median length of hospital stay was 6 days (range: 1-57). In the multivariate analysis time-to- antibiotic administration (regression coefficient [RC]: 0.31 days [95% CI: 0.13-0.48]), known source of fever (RC: 4.1 days [95% CI: 0.76-7.5]), and MASCC high risk group (RC: 4 days [95% CI: 1.1-7.0]) were significantly correlated with longer hospital stay. Of 105 patients, 5 (4.7%) died & or required ICU monitoring. In multivariate analysis no variables significantly correlated with mortality or ICU monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: Our study revealed that delay in antibiotics administration has been associated with a longer hospital stay.
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 | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".