Neutropenia in Asian patients with solid tumours receiving chemotherapy: A retrospective case-control study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: To compare the incidence of neutropenia and neutropenic sepsis in Asian versus Caucasian patients with solid tumours onintravenous chemotherapy. Methods: A retrospective case-control study comparing the incidence of neutropenia and neutropenic sepsis in Asian and Caucasian patients receiving infusional chemotherapy at our unit was performed. 15 Asian and 15 Caucasian patients receiving chemotherapy between November 2012 and June 2014 were included in the study and they were matched, where possible, for age, gender, tumour type and chemotherapy regime. The primary objective was to compare the incidence of grade 4 (≤ 0.5 cells x 10 9 /L) neutropenia and neutropenic sepsis. The secondary objective was to compare the incidence of grade 2 (≤ 1.5 cells x 10 9 /L) neutropenia and neutropenic sepsis. Results: There was no significant difference in the proportion of Asian and Caucasian patients who developed grade 4 neutropenia(33.3% vs. 20% of patients; P = .409) or neutropenic sepsis (20% vs. 6.7%; P = .283). However, there was a trend towards agreater proportion of Asian patients developing grade 2 neutropenia (66.7% vs. 33.3%; P = .068) which was associated with asignificantly greater proportion of Asian patients developing grade 2 neutropenic sepsis (40% vs. 6.7%; P = .031). Conclusion: This small-scale study suggests that Asian patients may suffer from an increased propensity towards neutropenia andneutropenic sepsis when receiving infusional chemotherapy emphasising the need for further research in this area. In particular,the role of prophylactic supportive therapy, such as G-CSF, in Asian patients needs to be determined.
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) | 0.001 | 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".