Delayed nausea and vomiting in children receiving antineoplastics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The nature and prevalence of delayed antineoplastic-induced nausea and vomiting have not been well-described in children. This study describes the extent of delayed nausea and vomiting in children receiving antineoplastic agents as well as the drug therapies initiated in an attempt to prevent or manage it. PROCEDURE: All children receiving antineoplastics were eligible for study entry. The date and time of each emetic episode were recorded on each day antineoplastics were given and for 3 days thereafter. Nausea was self-assessed daily by children who were older than 3 years and were not developmentally delayed. Diet was also assessed daily. The emetic response, median nausea rating and median diet achieved were described. RESULTS: The emetic response of 124 children who received 174 antineoplastic cycles was evaluated. Most cycles (137/174;79%) were not associated with delayed vomiting. Cycles which included cisplatin, carboplatin, or cyclophosphamide; involved antineoplastic therapy given over 2 or more consecutive days; or were accompanied by vomiting during the acute phase were associated with a significantly higher incidence of delayed vomiting. Moderate to severe nausea was reported on 58% (267/459) of study days. No antiemetics were given on most study days (412/522;79%); nevertheless, most of the study days (381/412;93%) which were unaccompanied by antiemetic support during the delayed phase were completely free from vomiting. Antiemetics were most often given as single agents (ondansetron: 54 study days; dimenhydrinate: 17 study days; dexamethasone: 6 study days). Diet was largely unaffected during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Antineoplastic-induced delayed nausea and vomiting may be less prevalent in children than in adults. Routine antiemetic administration during the delayed phase may not be warranted in all patients. Med Pediatr Oncol 2001;37:115-121.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".