Use of Continuous Infusion Pumps During Radiation Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Despite increasing chemoradiotherapy treatment, there is a paucity of information regarding the effects of radiation exposure on ambulatory infusion pumps used to deliver chemotherapy or other essential medications. The aim of this overview is to present the available evidence on this subject, heighten awareness within the clinical community, provide considerations for minimizing possible negative effects on patient care, and encourage the monitoring of infusion devices after exposure to radiation or electromagnetic interference. METHODS: Published literature was systematically searched using MEDLINE and EMBASE; gray literature was searched using Google and an environmental scan of relevant Web sites. A multidisciplinary working group reviewed the compiled evidence, and a draft of the document was sent to health professionals from various disciplines for an external review. RESULTS: Four reports and three manufacturer device alerts were identified that suggest a risk of pump malfunction as a result of radiation exposure. The estimated cumulative dose at which pump failure has been reported ranges from 28.5 to 42 Gy; however, additional clinical investigations should be undertaken. Pump relocation, pump shielding, and assessment of the pump after radiation exposure are most commonly suggested to minimize pump malfunction related to radiation exposure. A list of additional considerations is offered for those developing institution specific policies and procedures based on the available evidence and expert consensus. CONCLUSION: The varied and unpredictable results of radiation exposure on infusion devices suggest that additional testing should be carried out to determine the limits of dose exposure and to raise awareness around this patient safety issue.
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) | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".