MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2325572951 · doi:10.1097/jom.0000000000000097

Occupational Exposure to Cyclophosphamide in Nurses at a Single Center

2014· article· en· W2325572951 on OpenAlexaff
Raveena Ramphal, Tejinder Bains, Régis Vaillancourt, Martin H. Osmond, Nicholas Barrowman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicSafe Handling of Antineoplastic Drugs
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCyclophosphamideMedicineChemotherapyOccupational exposureInternal medicineOncologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate biological and environmental exposure to cyclophosphamide in nurses at a single institution. METHODS: Biological exposure to cyclophosphamide in nurses administering cyclophosphamide compared with two control groups: nononcology nurses not administering cyclophosphamide and community members without recent hospital exposure. Environmental exposure to chemotherapy was measured using surface wipes taken from oncology and nononcology areas in the hospital. RESULTS: More than one third of all nurses and no community controls tested positive for urinary cyclophosphamide. Oncology and nurse controls tested positive in equal numbers. Surface wipes were positive only in the oncology ward. CONCLUSION: We have demonstrated elevated levels of cyclophosphamide in one third of all nurses and cyclophosphamide contamination of surfaces within the oncology patient environment. This suggests that environmental contamination plays a major role in biological exposure to cyclophosphamide.

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)0.000
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.319 · 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

Citations41
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Occupational and Environmental MedicineSame topicSafe Handling of Antineoplastic DrugsFrench-language works237,207