The Neurotoxicity and Pharmacokinetics of Oral Ifosfamide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose:Ifosfamide can cause an unexplained encephalopathy. The incidence after intravenous infusion is 10%, but is much higher after oral administration. This study assesses the pharmacokinetics of oral ifosfamide in relation to neurotoxicity. Patients and Methods:Eleven patients received oral ifosfamide 500 mg twice daily for 14 days, with concurrent oral mesna. The concentrations of ifosfamide, isophosphoramide mustard, 2-dechloroethylifosfamide, 3-dechloroethylifosfamide, carboxyifosfamide, ketoifosfamide, chloroethylamine and 3-oxazolidine-2-one were measured using GC-MS. Patients were evaluated clinically, and also with the EEG, psychometric testing, the national adult reading test, and the mini-mental state examination. Results:A decrease in the electroencephalogram alpha frequency was observed, with the development of pathological slow wave activity. Psychometric performance was also impaired. Neurotoxicity was progressive during treatment, and the incidence of grade 3 neurotoxicity was 22%. The mean day 14 / day 1 Cmax ratios for 2-dechloroethylifosfamide and 3-dechloroethylifosfamide were 2.73 (± 2.11) and 2.04 (± 1.32) respectively. The metabolite with the lowest ratio was isophosphoramide mustard 1.07 (± 0.39). High chloroethylamine Cmax values were associated with lower alpha frequencies, and increased clinical neurotoxicity. Conclusion:Oral ifosfamide 500 mg twice daily for 14 days causes unacceptable neurotoxicity. It was not possible to identify one particular metabolite responsible for the neurotoxicity, although the dechloroethyl metabolites and chloroethylamine are implicated.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".