MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Impact of weight and creatinine measurements in carboplatin dosing.

2012· article· en· W2222894682 on OpenAlexaff
Feriel Boumedien, Youri Arsenault, Nathalie Letarte

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChemotherapy-induced organ toxicity mitigation
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarboplatinCreatinineMedicineDosingUrologyBody mass indexRenal functionBody weightInternal medicineChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e13027 Background: Controversy surrounding weight in Carboplatin dosing is still current. Also, new methods of measuring serum creatinine have raised more questions regarding the precision of Carboplatin dose calculations. The two objectives of this study were to evaluate the impact of alternative weight indicators (actual and adjusted body weight) in the Cockcroft–Gault equation and the use of different creatinine measurements (standard and IDMS) in order to accurately predict Carboplatin dose. Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review on all patients who received at least one dose of Carboplatin between March 7 th and May 8 th 2010. The patients were divided into two groups according to their body mass index (BMI): 20 < BMI < 27 and BMI ≥ 27. The differential creatinine clearance and Carboplatin dose were assessed in each group using the actual body weight and the adjusted body weight with IDMS creatinine. Moreover, for patients who had their creatinine measurement at the CHUM hospital, we calculate the difference in Carboplatin dose by using the standard creatinine (SC) measurement and IDMS creatinine with the same weight. Results: A total of 95 patients, representing 119 Carboplatin doses, were included in the analysis. 82% were women and median age was 63. The average BMI was 26,6. The Carboplatin expected AUC was 5 for 89% of patients and Carboplatin was associated to Paclitaxel in 78% of patients. In patients with a 20<BMI< 27 (44%), the average difference between the calculated dose using their actual body weight and adjusted body weight was +6.03% (95% CI, 5.2 to 6.9%). For patients with a BMI ≥ 27 (43%), the mean dose difference was +20.6% (95% CI, 18.8 to 22.5%). The use of SC or IDMS creatinine led to a discrepancy in doses of 5.2% (95% CI, 4.7 to 5.7%) for patients with BMI <27 (35 patients) and 5.5% (95% CI, 4.9 to 6.2%) for those with BMI ≥ 27 (23 patients). Conclusions: Based on these findings, we decide in our clinic, to use the actual body weight for patients with a BMI between 20 and 27, and the adjusted body weight for those with a BMI ≥ 27. We also chose not to modify our doses based on the type of the serum creatinine measurement.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.413

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.205
GPT teacher head0.507
Teacher spread0.302 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicChemotherapy-induced organ toxicity mitigationFrench-language works237,207