MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094502152 · doi:10.1182/blood-2006-11-059469

Rapid infusion rituximab in combination with corticosteroid-containing chemotherapy or as maintenance therapy is well tolerated and can safely be delivered in the community setting

2007· article· en· W2094502152 on OpenAlexafffund
Laurie H. Sehn, Jane Donaldson, Allison Filewich, C. P. Fitzgerald, Karamjit Gill, Nancy Runzer, Barb Searle, Sheila Souliere, John J. Spinelli, Judy Sutherland, Joseph M. Connors

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Cancer Agency
FundersBC Cancer Agency
KeywordsMedicineRituximabMaintenance therapyChemotherapy regimenCorticosteroidChemotherapyInternal medicineOncologySurgeryLymphoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The increasing usage of rituximab in the management of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) has created huge logistical challenges with respect to the delivery of this time- and labor-intensive drug. To address these challenges, we developed and tested the feasibility of a 90-minute infusion schedule for rituximab (20% of the dose administered in the first 30 minutes, remaining 80% administered over 60 minutes). A safety analysis performed in 150 patients receiving rituximab with corticosteroid-containing chemotherapy and 56 patients receiving rituximab as maintenance therapy demonstrated that this schedule was well tolerated, with no grade 3 or 4 infusion reactions observed. In addition, no increase in minor reactions was noted. More than 1200 patients have been treated with this rapid rituximab infusion schedule in the province of British Columbia (BC), demonstrating its safety in the community setting. The adoption of this 90-minute schedule as standard practice has had a positive impact on resource utilization.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.111
Threshold uncertainty score0.596

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.243 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations99
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicLymphoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207