Pilot study of biological monitoring of four antineoplastic drugs among Canadian healthcare workers
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose There are health risks to workers occupationally exposed to antineoplastic drugs. We hypothesized that implementing a biological monitoring program would be feasible. The goal was to present the results of our pilot cross-sectional study of biological monitoring of four antineoplastic drugs. Methods We recruited workers from the hematology-oncology department and control workers in a mother-child university health center. This study was preceded by an information period during which we aimed at enhancing the workers' awareness and knowledge of the risks of occupational exposure. Participants filled out a journal containing activities performed and personal protective equipment worn. One urine sample was collected at the end of their shift. Samples were analyzed by UPLC/MS-MS for the presence of cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide, methotrexate, and alpha-fluoro-beta-alanine (5-fluorouracile's main urinary metabolite). Results The participation rate was 85.7% (102/119). No urine sample had detectable concentrations of any of the four drugs evaluated (0/101; 0/74 nurses, 0/11 pharmacists, 0/9 pharmacy technicians, and 0/7 doctors). In the 5 days before sampling, 67/92 (72.8%) hematology-oncology participants performed at least one activity with antineoplastic drugs. Nurses wore all of the recommended protection for technical activities (86.2%), but rarely for non-technical activities (14.9%). Pharmacists and pharmacy technicians wore all of the recommended protection for all activities (100.0%). Conclusions This pilot study had a good participation rate. The absence of positive samples was a good indication that the measures in place ensured workers' safety, even though we found areas where the worker protection can be enhanced.
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it