MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Can prognostic factors identify women receiving anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy (MEC) who do not require an NK<sub>1</sub> receptor antagonist?

2009· article· en· W2263368480 on OpenAlexaff
David Warr, James C. Street, A. Carides

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and Medication Impact
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAprepitantMedicineOndansetronAntiemeticInternal medicinePlaceboNK1 receptor antagonistChemotherapyMucositisRegimenGastroenterologyOncologyAnesthesiaNausea

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e20502 Background: Age, alcohol use, and history of sickness associated with pregnancy or motion have been identified as risk factors for chemotherapy-induced emesis. This post hoc analysis addressed two questions: 1) Can prognostic factors identify a low risk group for whom ondansetron (OND) plus dexamethasone [D] alone provide a high level of protection (≥80% no emesis)? 2) Does the NK1 receptor antagonist aprepitant improve antiemetic outcome regardless of emetic risk? Methods: The analysis was based upon outcomes in patients with breast cancer enrolled in a Phase III double-blind, placebo-controlled trial randomized to Day 1 OND 8 mg and D 20 mg before chemotherapy and OND 8 hours later and OND 8 mg bid Days 2–3 vs. Day 1 aprepitant 125 mg PO, OND 8 mg, and D 12 mg before chemotherapy and OND 8 mg 8 hours later and aprepitant 80 mg PO qd Days 2–3. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to assess the impact on emesis of the regimen with aprepitant, and previously reported risk factors, including age (<55 and ≥55 years), ethanol use (0–4 or ≥5 drinks/week), history of pregnancy-related morning sickness, and history of motion sickness, using a modified intent-to-treat approach. Results: 856 patients were assessed for efficacy. Treatment with aprepitant (p<0.0001), older age (p=0.006), ethanol use (p=0.0048), and no history of morning sickness (p=0.0007) were all significantly associated with reduced likelihood of emesis; motion sickness was not a risk factor. The Table below shows the probability of no emesis associated with the presence of 0, 1, 2, or all of these factors in the aprepitant and active control arms. Conclusions: 1) The low-risk group identified by this analysis is of questionable utility because it comprised less than 3% of patients. 2) We could not confirm that motion sickness was a significant risk factor. 3) Aprepitant improved the control of emesis irrespective of the number of risk factors for emesis. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.363 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicPregnancy and Medication Impact→French-language works237,207→