Validation of the oral mucositis assessment scale in pediatric cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Our objective was to examine the construct validity of the Oral Mucositis Assessment Scale (OMAS) in children receiving doxorubicin chemotherapy. METHODS: Children between 6 and 18 years of age with cancer receiving doxorubicin-containing chemotherapy were included. OMAS was measured on days 7, 10, 14, and 17 after chemotherapy. Other measures of mucositis obtained concurrent with OMAS were the World Health Organization (WHO) mucositis scale and pain visual analogue scale (VAS). We also recorded analgesia administration. RESULTS: Sixteen children were studied for 45 post-chemotherapy cycles and 156 OMAS assessments were performed. OMAS was moderately correlated with WHO scores (r = 0.56; P = 0.0006) whereas correlation with the pain VAS was fair (r = 0.37; P = 0.002). OMAS also had fair correlation with the number of doses of topical analgesia (r = 0.43; P = 0.001) and with the cumulative dose of opioid analgesia (r = 0.38; P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: The OMAS is valid for use in mucositis clinical trials for children at least 6 years of age.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".