Examining the safety and efficacy of a chemotherapy dosing method in Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplant patients of extreme body size
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is no consensus on a universal dosing method for calculating high-dose chemotherapy in allogeneic Stem Cell Transplant (SCT) patients. The Metropolitan Life (Met-Life) Insurance Company's weight-height tables have been used to determine body weight for chemotherapy dosing for SCT, however no formal study has been done to determine if the Met-Life weight- height tables can be used for chemotherapy dosing in SCT. We retrospectively studied the use of Met-Life weight-height tables for chemotherapy dosing in SCT. Our goal is to determine if patients with extremes of body size who had undergone an SCT and were dosed according to the Met-Life weight- height tables had an increase of Treatment Related Morbidity (TRM) or mortality or relapse. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were grouped into three different treatment regimens, cyclophosphamide/TBI, busulphan/cyclophosphamide, and AraC/cyclophosphamide/TBI. Patients in each treatment regimen were further divided into five equal groups based on weight. Treatment related morbidity and mortality was evaluated by comparing the lowest and highest quintiles to the middle quintiles within each treatment regimen. RESULT: Data from 262 patients was evaluated in this study. Overall, there was not an increase in TRM or mortality or in relapse in patients with extremes of body size. CONCLUSION: The Met-Life weight-height tables could be used to dose patients undergoing allogeneic SCTs. Additional prospective studies would need to be done comparing other chemotherapy dosing methods with the Met-Life weight-height tables to further validate this conclusion.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".