Prophylactic low-dose G-CSF in patients with breast cancer experiencing grade 4 neutropenia during their previous (neo-) adjuvant (F)EC-chemotherapy cycle: Results of a pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Grade 4 neutropenia is associated with an increased risk of infections. Low-dose lenograstim at 13 million units per day is commonly used in children undergoing cytotoxic chemotherapy. The present pilot study investigated the effect of prophylactic low-dose lenograstim (13 million units of lenograstim, GranozyteR, Sanofi-Aventis Pharma) in 20 patients with breast cancer who received (neo) adjuvant (F)EC (5-fluorouracil-epirubicin-cyclophosphamide) chemotherapy on days 3 to 10 of the chemotherapy cycle. All of them had experienced nadirs of absolute neutrophil counts (ANC) < 500/mm 3 and white blood cells (WBC) < 1,000/mm 3 during the preceding identical (F)EC chemotherapy cycle, respecttively. The primary endpoint of this study was the number of cycles with recurrent grade 4 neutropenia. White blood cells, neutrophil granulocytes, hemoglobin, and platelets were recorded on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each cycle. Neutrophil counts and white blood cells remained stable over time ( p > .05). Grade 4 neutropenia occurred in 4% of lenograstim-supported cycles only. Antibiotics were necessary in 4% of cycles only. Grade 1 or 2 bone pain was recorded in 14%. In conclusion, an economic regimen of prophylactic low-dose lenograstim, administered at 13 million units per day over 8 days, has been demonstrated to maintain neutrophil levels above the critical level and thus to prevent grade 4 neutropenia. Trials comparing this regimen with pegylated G-CSF seem warranted.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".