Anemia is a Common but Neglected Complication of Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Early Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we set out to determine the frequency and severity of anemia and the corrective interventions used during adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer.We conducted a retrospective electronic chart review of 702 patients who received adjuvant breast cancer chemotherapy at four BC Cancer Agency centres in 2002 and 2003. For these patients, we recorded the initial hemoglobin reading and the date of the first hemoglobin reading in the ranges 110-119 g/L, 100-109 g/L, 90-99 g/L, and <90 g/L. We also recorded any discussion about, or delivery of, interventions for anemia [transfusion, epoetin (epo) or both].Median age of the study population was 51 years, and it varied with chemotherapy type. Among the patients, 12% had a hemoglobin reading <120 g/L before the start of chemotherapy. Overall, the proportion of patients with at least one hemoglobin reading <120 g/L was 78%; <110 g/L, 54%; <100 g/L, 31%; and <90 g/L, 14%. Depending on chemotherapy type, a hemoglobin reading <100 g/L occurred in 5% to 54% of patients. Intervention rates increased as hemoglobin declined. For 99 patients with a hemoglobin reading <90 g/L, a discussion of anemia was documented in the treatment chart in 49% of cases, a transfusion was delivered in 23%, epo was used in 11%, and transfusion and epo were both delivered in 5%.Anemia was relatively common and varied with chemotherapy type. Documentation of a discussion of anemia occurred in fewer than 20% of the patients with a hemoglobin reading of 90-99 g/L and in only half the patients with a hemoglobin reading <90 g/L. Intervention rates were low at hemoglobin readings for which randomized trials have shown that intervention can improve quality of life.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".