Systemic Treatment Safety Symposium 2014: Oral Chemotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The second Systemic Treatment Safety Symposium, which took place February 21, 2014, in Toronto, aimed to identify opportunities for improving the delivery of systemic cancer treatment in Ontario based on regional needs, while providing a venue for collaboration and knowledgesharing. The agenda included a series of panel sessions followed by discussions, presentations of regional improvement projects and results, and breakout sessions. Based on the discussion that took place at the symposium, a provincial goal of zero handwritten or verbal oral chemotherapy orders by June 30, 2015, has now been established, and regions will be provided with funding for safe prescribing initiatives to support achievement of that aim. Building on the lessons learned from the 2014 System Treatment Safety Symposium, a common measurement strategy will be identified, and Cancer Care Ontario (cco) will also support the work by identifying the recommended key elements of a safe oral chemotherapy prescription. Additionally, cco will identify areas for improving systemic treatment computerized prescriber order entry systems to better enable prescribing of oral agents within such systems. Among the most prominent of the lessons learned during the symposium was the importance of having a focused topic (such as oral chemotherapy) while maintaining a province-wide scope. Another significant takeaway was that attendees appreciate the opportunity to hear from colleagues across the province about the work underway in various regions. Future safety symposia will also explore opportunities for enhanced engagement with participants through greater use of technology.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.003 |
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".