Performance of Busulfan Dosing Guidelines for Pediatric Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant Conditioning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Achievement of a busulfan area-under-the-concentration versus time curve (AUC) of 900 to 1500 μM·min is associated with improved hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) outcomes. Multiple pediatric busulfan dosing guidelines aim to achieve this target. The authors' objective was to describe the AUCs achieved after simulated dosing using available pediatric i.v. busulfan dosing guidelines. The health records of children who received i.v. busulfan for HSCT conditioning at The Hospital for Sick Children were reviewed. Busulfan AUCs were calculated for each patient based on plasma busulfan concentrations using either a 1-compartment model or a validated limited-sampling strategy. Published pediatric busulfan dosing guidelines were identified. Initial busulfan doses were determined for all patients using each dosing guideline and total body weight (TBW). For overweight patients (TBW-to-ideal body weight [IBW] ≥ 1.25), initial busulfan doses were also determined using IBW and adjusted IBW (IBWadj). The resulting AUCs were simulated. The proportion of subjects (TBW/IBW < 1.25, TBW/IBW ≥ 1.25, and infants) with an AUC within target (900 to 1500 μM·min) after dosing simulation with each guideline was compared. One hundred eleven children (mean age, 6.2 years [SD, ±5.2]) who received i.v. busulfan were included. When dosing with each of the 12 i.v. busulfan dosing guidelines identified was simulated using TBW in 97 non-overweight patients, the proportion of patients with an AUC within the target range varied from 51% to 74% and from 45% to 64% in infants. Use of IBW or IBWadj to calculate initial busulfan doses in overweight children improved the performance of most guidelines. Current busulfan dosing guidelines vary in their ability to achieve AUCs within the target range. For children who are not overweight, we recommend 1 of 3 high-performing guidelines that allow individualization of the target busulfan AUC. Use of either IBW or IBWadj in overweight children improves the performance of most guidelines. Regardless of the guideline used, therapeutic drug monitoring is essential to verify achievement of the target AUC.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".