Lack of treatment-related mortality definitions in clinical trials of children, adolescents and young adults with lymphomas, solid tumors and brain tumors: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a lack of standardized definition for treatment-related mortality (TRM), which represents an important endpoint in cancer. Our objective was to describe TRM definitions used in studies of children, adolescents and young adults with lymphomas, solid tumors and brain tumors. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of studies enrolling children, adolescents and young adults with lymphomas, solid tumors and brain tumors in which an anti-cancer intervention was randomized, or all study designs in which TRM was a primary or secondary outcome. We searched Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE and Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews from 1980 to June 2013. Two reviewers evaluated study eligibility and abstracted data. RESULTS: In total, 67 studies were included and consisted of 62 randomized therapeutic trials and 5 TRM studies. None of the studies (0/67) provided a definition for TRM. Only one randomized trial of rhabdomyosarcoma provided a definition of early death. CONCLUSIONS: We were unable to identify any TRM definitions used in studies of children, adolescents and young adults with lymphomas, solid tumors and brain tumors. Given that a proportion of this patient population may receive intensive treatment, there is an urgent need for consensus-based definitions of TRM for use across clinical trials.
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 | 0.048 | 0.210 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".