Templates of patient brochures for the preparation, administration and safe-handling of oral chemotherapy
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The increased use of oral chemotherapy for the treatment of cancer introduces new challenges for patients and caregivers. Among them are the ability to swallow oral solid dosage forms, the proper administration of the agents and the safe-handling of chemotherapeutic drugs in the home. Since these drugs are hazardous, proper preparation, administration, and disposition introduces a variety of safety issues. The increased toxicity of these drugs coupled with complicated dosing regimens and the occasional need to dilute the drug or measure a liquid dosage form require careful instruction of the patient and/or caregivers. The purpose of this project was to create templates for writing patient instruction brochures. METHODS: A group of clinicians specializing in oncology from several institutions in the United States and Canada met through a series of conference calls. The group included pharmacists with a specialty in pediatric oncology, investigational drug pharmacists, and an oncology nurse practitioner. National guidelines and practices at each institution were used for the creation of templates to be used in developing templates for medication and formulation-specific instruction brochures. RESULTS: The group developed six templates. The templates ranged in scope from instructions on the administration of intact tablets or capsules to directions on opening capsules or crushing tablets and mixing the content with foods or liquids. Thirty-three drug-specific brochures were developed using the templates. CONCLUSION: Templates of patient brochures and drug-specific brochures on the safe handling of chemotherapy in the home can be created using a collaborative, multi-institutional approach.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it