MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2591671154 · doi:10.3747/co.24.3470

A Canadian Perspective on the Subcutaneous Administration of Rituximab in Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma

2017· review· en· W2591671154 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
David MacDonald, T. Crosbie, Anna Christofides, Wissam Assaily, John Wiernikowski

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsJuravinski HospitalJuravinski Cancer CentreRoche (Canada)ImpactOttawa HospitalQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreFluidigm (Canada)Dalhousie University
FundersH. Lundbeck A/SJavna Agencija za Raziskovalno Dejavnost RS
KeywordsMedicineRituximabDosingPharmacokineticsLymphomaHealth careQuality of life (healthcare)Drug administrationAdministration (probate law)Intensive care medicinePharmacologyInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rituximab is widely used for the treatment of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, being a key component in most therapeutic regimens. Administration of the intravenous (IV) formulation is lengthy and places a significant burden on health care resources and patient quality of life. A subcutaneous (sc) formulation that provides a fixed dose of rituximab is being examined in a number of studies. Results indicate that the pharmacokinetics are noninferior and response rates are comparable to those obtained with the IV formulation. Moreover, the sc formulation is preferred by patients and health care providers and reduces administration and chair time. Additional advantages include a lesser potential for dosing errors, shorter preparation time, reduced drug wastage, and fewer infusion-related reactions. Despite the success of the sc formulation, correct administration is needed to reduce administration-related reactions. By using a careful procedure, the sc formulation can be given safely and effectively, potentially reducing the burden on health care resources and improving quality of life for patients.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.203
GPT teacher head0.486
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations15
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicLymphoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207