MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Dose banding of chemotherapy doses at the Juravinski Cancer Centre

2006· article· en· W2118008308 on OpenAlexaffabout
Hal W. Hirte, S. Kagoma, Lipeng Zhong, Ian Collins, Dan Burns, Carol Rand, Talia Simpson, Anne Snider

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicSafe Handling of Antineoplastic Drugs
Canadian institutionsJuravinski Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInterimChemotherapyInterim analysisPharmacyCancer chemotherapySurgeryInternal medicineClinical trialNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

6099 Background: As the number and complexity of chemotherapy regimens increase, the demands on pharmacy services to reduce chemotherapy preparation and checking times continues to increase. Dose banding, a system whereby doses of intravenous cytotoxic drugs calculated on an individual basis are rounded up or down to predetermined standard doses (the maximum variation of the adjustment between standard dose and doses constituting each band is 5% or less) was identified as a strategy that could be used to address some of the issues around time pressures to help reduce patient waiting times for treatment. Methods: The project consisted of 3 phases; Phase I - literature review to identify dose banding publications; Phase II - selection of drugs to be banded for the pilot. The two drugs selected were 5FU and leukovorin, and Phase III - Time studies pre-, interim and post dose banding implementation to determine drug dispensing time and patients’ wait time for pharmacy related procedures. This occurred for a 2 week period (10 working days) either prior to implementation (pre- 819 patients studied), 4 days after implementation (interim - 854 patients studied) and 4 weeks after implementation (post - 785 patients studied). Results: Drug dispensing time did not decrease with dose banding (pre- 7.9 min, interim - 7.6 min and post - 9.4 min). However, the average patient wait time decreased after piloting the dose banding project (pre - 31.6 min, interim 23.7 min, and post - 27.8 min). The percentage of doses that were banded were 37.8% in the interim time study and 58.2% in the post time study. Conclusions: Although dose banding did not reduce dispensing time in this study, likely because the preparation for dispensing 5FU and leukovorin syringes is normally very simple and quick, patient’s wait time for pharmacy related procedures did decrease. This was probably due to contributions of other factors in the pharmacy process. A reduction in dispensing time could likely be achieved if more complex regimens were considered for dose banding. Dose banding could be used to increase capacity within the chemotherapy suite on the day of administration. It also allows for a better work schedule and increases efficiencies within the chemotherapy preparation and administration areas. (Sponsored by funds from Cancer Care Ontario) No significant financial relationships to disclose.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.004

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 head0.151
GPT teacher head0.553
Teacher spread0.402 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicSafe Handling of Antineoplastic DrugsFrench-language works237,207