Multicenter Study of Environmental Contamination with Antineoplastic Drugs in 36 Canadian Hospitals: A 2013 Follow-up Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
No occupational exposure limit exists for antineoplastic drugs. The main objective of this study was to describe environmental contamination with cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide, and methotrexate in pharmacy and patient care areas of Canadian hospitals in 2013. The secondary objective was to compare the 2013 environmental monitoring results with previous studies. Six standardized sites in the pharmacy and six sites on patient care areas were sampled in each participating center. Samples were analyzed for the presence of cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide, and methotrexate by UPLC-MSMS. The limit of detection (LOD) in pg/cm(2) was 1.8 for cyclophosphamide, 2.2 for ifosfamide, and 7.5 for methotrexate. The 75th percentile of cyclophosphamide concentration was compared between the 2013, 2008-2010, and 2012 studies. Thirty-six hospitals participated in the study and 422 samples were collected. Overall, 47% (198/422) of the samples were positive for cyclophosphamide, 18% (75/422) were positive for ifosfamide, and 3% (11/422) were positive for methotrexate. In 2013, the 75th percentile value of cyclophosphamide surface concentration was reduced to 8.4pg/cm(2) (n = 36), compared with 9.4pg/cm(2) in 2012 (n = 33) and 40pg/cm(2) (n = 25) in 2008-2010. The 75th percentile for ifosfamide and methotrexate concentration remained lower than the LOD. The 2013 study shows an improvement in the surface contamination level, and a plateau effect in the proportion of positive samples.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".