Prevention and Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Diarrhea in Patients with Colorectal Cancer: A Consensus Statement by the Canadian Working Group on Chemotherapy-Induced Diarrhea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chemotherapy-induced diarrhea (cid) is a common side effect of cancer treatment and can cause significant morbidity and mortality. Diarrhea is frequently severe enough to require a dose reduction of, a delay in, or a discontinuation of chemotherapy. Diarrhea-associated mortality has been reported to be as high as 3.5% in clinical trials of irinotecan and bolus 5-fluorouracil in colorectal cancer. The frequency of cid and its impact on patient management are frequently under-recognized in clinical practice.A Canadian working group, consisting of medical oncologists and an oncology pharmacist, was formed in 2001 to review the optimal approach to managing cid and to identify and implement new areas of research. The recommendations that follow are the result of the group's work.Acute medical management of cid includes loperamide or diphenoxylate as first-line agents. Subcutaneous octreotide is recommended for intractable grade 2 diarrhea and may be considered for grade 1 cid that does not resolve with high-dose loperamide. Hospitalization is recommended for patients with grades 3 and 4 cid; in-hospital care includes rehydration, antibiotic therapy, and octreotide.A chemotherapy dose reduction is generally advised for patients who have experienced grade 3 or 4 diarrhea in a previous chemotherapy cycle. If a dose reduction is not desired, prophylaxis with intramuscular long-acting release octreotide may be considered.The foregoing recommendations are based on expert opinion and require validation in prospective clinical trials.
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 | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".