Baseline Blood Work Before Initiation of Chemotherapy: What Is Safe in the Real World?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This is an observational study of patterns of practice of the timing of baseline blood work (BBW) before chemotherapy initiation. The primary objective was to evaluate the incidence of significant changes in laboratory values within 6 weeks before therapy. METHODS: All consecutive patients receiving chemotherapy within a 6-month period were analyzed retrospectively. Time interval between date of chemotherapy initiation and nearest blood work was calculated. Data from patients with one or more sets of values within 6 weeks were used to evaluate dosing changes. Changes in laboratory values collected closest to the date of chemotherapy and values collected before that but within 6 weeks were graded according to the National Cancer Institute's Common Toxicity Criteria. A change of ≥1 grade was considered clinically meaningful. RESULTS: Five hundred ninety-two patients were included. Median interval between BBW and initiation of chemotherapy was 4 days. Three hundred thirty-five patients had two or more sets of laboratory tests within the 6-week period, 33% of patients had a meaningful change in one or more values. The majority of changes occurred in hemoglobin (22%), ALT (14%), WBC (11%) and AST(10%), yet only 66% of patients had liver function tests as part of the BBW. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to the institutional recommendation of BBW within 6 weeks was high. Baseline laboratory tests performed within 7 days of chemotherapy initiation would have detected nearly all significant changes; therefore, we suggest that this interval be tested in future randomized trials.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".