Cisplatin Nephrotoxicity and Longitudinal Growth in Children With Solid Tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cisplatin, a major antineoplastic drug used in the treatment of solid tumors, is a known nephrotoxin. This retrospective cohort study evaluated the prevalence and severity of cisplatin nephrotoxicity in 54 children and its impact on height and weight.We recorded the weight, height, serum creatinine, and electrolytes in each cisplatin cycle and after 12 months of treatment. Nephrotoxicity was graded as follows: normal renal function (Grade 0); asymptomatic electrolyte disorders, including an increase in serum creatinine, up to 1.5 times baseline value (Grade 1); need for electrolyte supplementation <3 months and/or increase in serum creatinine 1.5 to 1.9 times from baseline (Grade 2); increase in serum creatinine 2 to 2.9 times from baseline or need for electrolyte supplementation for more than 3 months after treatment completion (Grade 3); and increase in serum creatinine ≥3 times from baseline or renal replacement therapy (Grade 4).Nephrotoxicity was observed in 41 subjects (75.9%). Grade 1 nephrotoxicity was observed in 18 patients (33.3%), Grade 2 in 5 patients (9.2%), and Grade 3 in 18 patients (33.3%). None had Grade 4 nephrotoxicity. Nephrotoxicity patients were younger and received higher cisplatin dose, they also had impairment in longitudinal growth manifested as statistically significant worsening on the height Z Score at 12 months after treatment. We used a multiple logistic regression model using the delta of height Z Score (baseline-12 months) as dependent variable in order to adjust for the main confounder variables such as: germ cell tumor, cisplatin total dose, serum magnesium levels at 12 months, gender, and nephrotoxicity grade. Patients with nephrotoxicity Grade 1 where at higher risk of not growing (OR 5.1, 95% CI 1.07-24.3, P=0.04). The cisplatin total dose had a significant negative relationship with magnesium levels at 12 months (Spearman r=-0.527, P=<0.001).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".