MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2608956394 · doi:10.1002/pbc.26542

Guideline for the prevention of acute chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting in pediatric cancer patients: A focused update

2017· review· en· W2608956394 on OpenAlexafffund
Priya Patel, Paula D. Robinson, Jennifer Thackray, Jacqueline Flank, Mark T. Holdsworth, Paul Gibson, Andrea D. Orsey, Carol Portwine, Jason L. Freedman, Jennifer R. Madden, Lillian Sung, L. Lee Dupuis

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Blood & Cancer · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNausea and vomiting management
Canadian institutionsOntario Clinical Oncology GroupHospital for Sick ChildrenMcMaster University Medical CentreUniversity of TorontoPediatric Oncology GroupMcMaster UniversityLondon Health Sciences Centre
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchPediatric Oncology Group of Ontario
KeywordsAprepitantPalonosetronMedicineGuidelineChemotherapy-induced nausea and vomitingNauseaVomitingIntensive care medicineChemotherapyOncologyAntiemeticInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This update of the 2013 clinical practice guideline provides clinicians with guidance regarding the use of aprepitant and palonosetron for the prevention of acute chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in children. The recommendations were based on three systematic reviews. Substantive changes were made to the guideline recommendations including the inclusion of palonosetron to the 5‐HT3 antagonists recommended for children receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and the recommendation of aprepitant for children 6 months of age or older receiving HEC. To optimize CINV control in children, future work must focus on closing critical research gaps.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.331 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations127
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric Blood & CancerSame topicNausea and vomiting managementFrench-language works237,207