MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Current Canadian Experience With Capecitabine

2003· review· en· W2075157026 on OpenAlexaffabout
Bonnie-Mae Gerbrecht

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Nursing · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Treatment and Pharmacology
Canadian institutionsBaker Hughes (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCapecitabineMedicinePsychological interventionIntensive care medicineColorectal cancerMetastatic breast cancerOncologyOncology nursingCancerNursingBreast cancerInternal medicineNurse education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Capecitabine (Xeloda) is the first oral chemotherapeutic agent to be used in Canada for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer and metastatic colorectal cancer. The home-based administration of this drug, coupled with the importance of prompt side-effect management, presents unique challenges to oncology nurses and gives them an expanded role in optimizing therapeutic outcomes. Fulfillment of this role involves partnering with patients to help them become educated active participants in their own treatment, and to ensure that side effects are prevented, recognized, and managed adeptly. Although well tolerated, capecitabine, as with all chemotherapy, can require interventions and dose modification. Hand-foot syndrome, the most common dose-limiting toxicity, requires particular attention. Drawing from published articles and interviews with Canadian oncology care providers, this article reviews the development and safety profile of capecitabine. Best practices in side-effect management are discussed, with a particular focus on managing hand-foot syndrome and building patient partnerships.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.311
Threshold uncertainty score0.625

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.364 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations24
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer NursingSame topicCancer Treatment and PharmacologyFrench-language works237,207