MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Phase 1 Study of Paclitaxel Administered Twice Weekly to Children With Refractory Solid Tumors: A Pediatric Oncology Group Study

2003· article· en· W2331094709 on OpenAlexaff
Robert J. Hayashi, Susan M. Blaney, Jim Sullivan, Steve Weitman, Teresa J. Vietti, Mark L. Bernstein

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Treatment and Pharmacology
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNational Center for Research ResourcesNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsMedicineNeutropeniaDosingRefractory (planetary science)PaclitaxelToxicityChemotherapyMaximum tolerated doseLimitingInternal medicineGastroenterologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To perform a phase 1 trial to determine the maximum tolerated dose and the dose-limiting toxicities of paclitaxel in children with refractory or recurrent solid tumors. Paclitaxel was administered twice weekly, increasing from four to six doses every 21 to 28 days. METHODS: Paclitaxel was administered as a 3-hour intravenous infusion twice weekly. The initial dose was fixed at 50 mg/m2/dose twice weekly for 2 weeks (four doses), every 21 days. The number of twice-weekly doses per course was increased to six in the next cohort. In subsequent cohorts, the number of twice-weekly doses per course was fixed at six, every 28 days, and dosage was increased in 25% increments. RESULTS: Sixteen assessable patients were enrolled at three levels. Neutropenia was the dose-limiting toxicity at 65 mg/m2/dose, twice weekly x 6 doses, every 28 days. Nonhematologic toxicities were minor. No antitumor responses were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Protracted twice-weekly dosing of paclitaxel is limited by neutropenia. The maximum tolerated dose of paclitaxel administered twice weekly x 6 doses, every 28 days, was 50 mg/m2/dose.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.683
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.365 · 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.

Study designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations22
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pediatric Hematology/OncologySame topicCancer Treatment and PharmacologyFrench-language works237,207