MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2293785325 · doi:10.1002/pbc.25955

Guideline for the Treatment of Breakthrough and the Prevention of Refractory Chemotherapy‐Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Children With Cancer

2016· review· en· W2293785325 on OpenAlexafffund
Jacqueline Flank, Paula D. Robinson, Mark T. Holdsworth, Carol Portwine, Paul Gibson, Cathy Maan, Nancy Stefin, Lillian Sung, L. Lee Dupuis

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Blood & Cancer · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNausea and vomiting management
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreMcMaster UniversityHospital for Sick ChildrenMcMaster University Medical CentreUniversity of TorontoPediatric Oncology GroupOntario Clinical Oncology Group
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchPediatric Oncology Group of OntarioHospital for Sick ChildrenChildren’s Oncology Group
KeywordsMedicineGuidelineChemotherapy-induced nausea and vomitingNauseaRefractory (planetary science)Intensive care medicineVomitingPsychological interventionAntiemeticClinical PracticeInternal medicineFamily medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This clinical practice guideline provides an approach to the treatment of breakthrough chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) and the prevention of refractory CINV in children. It was developed by an international, interprofessional panel and is based on systematic literature reviews. Evidence-based interventions for the treatment of breakthrough and prophylaxis of refractory CINV are recommended. Gaps in the evidence used to support the recommendations made in this clinical practice guideline were identified. The contribution of these recommendations to breakthrough and refractory CINV control in children requires prospective evaluation.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations88
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric Blood & CancerSame topicNausea and vomiting managementFrench-language works237,207