Antineoplastic agent workplace contamination study: the Alberta Cancer Board Pharmacy perspective Phase III
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To continue with workplace contamination monitoring in the Alberta Cancer Board (ACB) pharmacy practice environment. SETTING: The ACB in the Canadian province of Alberta which includes two public tertiary centers and 19 associated community satellite sites based around the province in existing hospitals. METHODS: After the completion of a Phase 1 and Phase 11 study,(1) which investigated the feasibility of routine monitoring of antineoplastic agent contamination in the pharmacy practice environment, it was decided to launch a Phase III study. The Phase III study would be done at the Cross Cancer Institute in the main pharmacy department as well as at a brand new satellite pharmacy within the CCI hospital. Samples would be taken in these areas as well as on the outer exterior of latex gloves worn to prepare cyclophosphamide and other antineoplastics. RESULTS: The result determined that the area in front of the biological safety cabinet in the main CCI pharmacy department as well as the exterior of the latex gloves showed evidence of cyclophosphamide contamination. The results from the sample taken in the new satellite pharmacy showed no evidence of cyclophosphamide contamination. CONCLUSION: results from this study prompted a decision to launch a Phase IV study to determine the feasibility within our network, for routine monitoring as well as sampling throughout the clean room beyond the BSC.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".