MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132908926 · doi:10.1592/phco.26.9.1221

Development and Validation of the Pediatric Nausea Assessment Tool for Use in Children Receiving Antineoplastic Agents

2006· article· en· W2132908926 on OpenAlexafffund
L. Lee Dupuis, Anna Taddio, Elizabeth N. Kerr, Andrea Kelly, Linda MacKeigan

Bibliographic record

VenuePharmacotherapy The Journal of Human Pharmacology and Drug Therapy · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNausea and vomiting management
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenPopulation Health Research InstituteUniversity of Toronto
FundersHospital for Sick Children
KeywordsNauseaMedicineChemotherapyConstruct validityVomitingDiscriminant validityPsychometricsInternal medicineClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate an instrument to assess nausea intensity in children aged 4-18 years. DESIGN: Prospective, descriptive study. SETTING: Tertiary-quaternary, university-affiliated pediatric hospital. PATIENTS: Four pediatric inpatient groups (177 patients): group 1 (107), those receiving cancer chemotherapy; group 2 (24), those receiving cancer chemotherapy before hematopoietic stem cell transplantation; group 3 (23), those with cancer who were not receiving cancer chemotherapy; and group 4 (23), those without cancer. INTERVENTION: We developed a scale with a standard script for administration, the Pediatric Nausea Assessment Tool (PeNAT). Revisions were made after face validity testing with clinicians and parents, and pilot testing with 15 inpatients undergoing chemotherapy. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The PeNAT scores were obtained 4-24 hours after chemotherapy in groups 1 and 2. Dietary intake scores and number of emetic episodes were recorded for the 4 hours before PeNAT administration for all patients in group 2 and 36 patients in group 1. Parents of a subset of patients made an independent assessment of their child's nausea and pain intensities immediately before PeNAT administration. Reliability was evaluated in groups 1 and 2 by correlating the first and second (obtained 1 hr after the first) PeNAT scores. Construct validity was evaluated by comparing PeNAT scores in groups 1-4. Criterion-related validity was evaluated by correlating PeNAT scores with emetic episodes and dietary intake. Convergent and discriminant validity were evaluated by correlating PeNAT scores with parental assessments of nausea and pain. Significant differences in PeNAT scores were noted among the study groups (p=0.035). Moderate correlation was noted between the first and second PeNAT scores (Spearman rho = 0.649). The PeNAT scores correlated modestly with emetic episodes (Spearman rho = 0.322) but not with dietary intake (Spearman rho = -0.217). Children's PeNAT scores correlated moderately with their parents' assessment of nausea (Spearman rho = 0.442), whereas little correlation was seen between children's PeNAT scores and parents' assessment of pain (Spearman rho = 0.167). CONCLUSION: The PeNAT is a new instrument that can be used by children to assess nausea intensity.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations117
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePharmacotherapy The Journal of Human Pharmacology and Drug TherapySame topicNausea and vomiting managementFrench-language works237,207