Methodology for Clinical Trials Involving Patients with Cancer Who Have Febrile Neutropenia: Updated Guidelines of the Immunocompromised Host Society/Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer, with Emphasis on Outpatient Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two multinational organizations, the Immunocompromised Host Society and the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer, have produced for investigators and regulatory bodies a set of guidelines on methodology for clinical trials involving patients with febrile neutropenia. The guidelines suggest that response (i.e., success of initial empirical antibiotic therapy without any modification) be determined at 72 h and again on day 5, and the reasons for modification should be stated. Blinding and stratification are to be encouraged, as should statistical consideration of trials specifically designed for showing equivalence. Patients enrolled in outpatient studies should be selected by use of a validated risk model, and patients should be carefully monitored after discharge from the hospital. Response and safety parameters should be recorded along with readmission rates. If studies use these guidelines, comparisons between studies will be simpler and will lead to further improvements in patient therapy.
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 | 0.497 | 0.523 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.011 |
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".