Evaluation of amifostine for protection against cisplatin-induced serious hearing loss in children treated for average-risk or high-risk medulloblastoma
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
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate amifostine for protection from cisplatin-induced serious hearing loss in patients with average-risk medulloblastoma by extending a previous analysis to a much larger sample size. In addition, this study aimed to assess amifostine with serious hearing loss in patients with high-risk medulloblastoma treated with cisplatin. METHODS: Newly diagnosed medulloblastoma patients (n = 379; ages 3-21 years), enrolled on one of 2 sequential St. Jude clinical protocols that included 4 courses of 75 mg/m(2) cisplatin, were compared for hearing loss by whether or not they received 600 mg/m(2) of amifostine immediately before and 3 hours into each cisplatin infusion. Amifostine administration was not randomized. The last audiological evaluation between 5.5 and 24.5 months following protocol treatment initiation was graded using the Chang Ototoxicity Scale. A grade of ≥ 2b (loss requiring a hearing aid or deafness) was considered a serious event. RESULTS: Among average-risk patients (n = 263), amifostine was associated with protection from serious hearing loss (adjusted OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.14-0.64). For high-risk patients (n = 116), however, there was not sufficient evidence to conclude that amifostine prevented serious hearing loss (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.31-2.54). CONCLUSIONS: Although patients in this study were not randomly assigned to amifostine treatment, we found evidence in favor of amifostine administration for protection against cisplatin-induced serious hearing loss in average-risk but not in high-risk, medulloblastoma patients.
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 | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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