MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022548731 · doi:10.1177/0008417414539926

Vincristine and fine motor function of children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia

2014· article· en· W2022548731 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Cheryl L. Sabarre, Shahrad R. Rassekh, Jill G. Zwicker

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Occupational Therapy · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVincristineMedicineLymphoblastic LeukemiaMotor functionPopulationLeukemiaInternal medicineChemotherapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia receive vincristine, a chemotherapy drug known to cause peripheral neuropathy. Yet, few studies have examined the association of vincristine to fine motor function. PURPOSE: This study will describe the fine motor skills and function of children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia on maintenance vincristine. METHOD: A prospective case series design assessed manual dexterity and parent-reported fine motor dysfunction of 15 children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia in relation to cumulative vincristine exposure. FINDINGS: Almost half of the participants had below-average fine motor skills compared to age-related norms, and 57% of parents observed functional motor problems in their children. No significant associations were found between vincristine, manual dexterity, and functional motor skills. IMPLICATIONS: Early detection and intervention for fine motor difficulties is suggested. Research with a larger sample is necessary to further explore the association of vincristine and fine motor function in this clinical population.

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)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.267 · 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Occupational TherapySame topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207