MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract P3-15-02: Underreporting of Myelotoxicity with Emerging Breast Cancer Regimens

2010· article· en· W2063855693 on OpenAlexaff
Ted Vandenberg, Siddharth Verma, Sibylle Loibl, J Crawford, Marcelo R. Choi, Lyndah Dreiling, A Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeutropenia and Cancer Infections
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNeutropeniaFebrile neutropeniaInternal medicineBreast cancerClinical trialIntensive care medicineCancerOncologyChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Although many emerging regimens that incorporate targeted agents may produce increased myelosuppressive side-effects, clinical data guiding colony-stimulating factor (CSF) use with these regimens are not readily available. This review assessed the reporting diligence around febrile neutropenia and the related use of CSF and antibiotics in published clinical trials evaluating emerging regimens for breast cancer treatment. Methods: We searched Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases to identify randomized, controlled phase 3 breast cancer studies published between Jan 2005 and June 2009. After excluding trials of vaccines, hormonal therapy alone, and stem cell transplantation/mobilization, corresponding publications were retrieved and data extracted on the incidence of neutropenia and its complications and CSF/antibiotic use. We then calculated the percentage of these publications that reported each outcome. Results: Of 463 trials identified from the search, only 73 met the inclusion criteria. Overall, 70% and 55% of trials reported the incidence of grade 3/4 neutropenia and febrile neutropenia, respectively (Table). Neutropenia-related hospitalizations were reported in 3% of trials. Prophylactic use of CSF and antibiotics was defined in the methods section of 59% and 23% of trials, respectively; and only reported in the results section of 22% and 5% of trials, respectively. Conclusion: Clinically significant neutropenia and neutropenia-related events (including febrile neutropenia) were generally described in the studies evaluated; however, the reported use of CSF and/or antibiotics was infrequent and inconsistent in the published literature of emerging regimens. A standardized approach to reporting neutropenic outcomes as well as the use of supportive care measures can assist cliniciansto prospectively manage the relevant toxicities associated with these emerging regimens and thereby facilitate their safe and effective use in clinical practice. Table: Reporting of myelotoxicity data in published phase 3 trials CSF = colony-stimulating factor Citation Information: Cancer Res 2010;70(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-15-02.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.483
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.365 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicNeutropenia and Cancer InfectionsFrench-language works237,207