MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2801834317 · doi:10.2196/resprot.8982

Impact of Oral Side Effects from Conditioning Therapy Before Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation: Protocol for a Multicenter Study

2018· article· en· W2801834317 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michael T. Brennan, Bengt Hasséus, Allan Hovan, Judith E. Raber‐Durlacher, Nicole M. A. Blijlevens, M.C.D.N.J.M. Huysmans, Karin Garming Legert, Jan‐Erik Johansson, Charity G. Moore, Inger von Bültzingslöwen

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOral health in cancer treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMucositisHematopoietic stem cell transplantationTransplantationInternal medicineClinical trialRadiation therapyTotal body irradiationSurgeryChemotherapyCyclophosphamide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The oral cavity is a common site of complications related to the cytotoxic effect of high-dose chemotherapy and radiation therapy. Considering our limited understanding of the burden of illness in the oral cavity from various cytotoxic therapies, it is difficult to produce evidence-based, preventive and management protocols. A prospective multicenter study is necessary to collect data on the burden of illness from various cytotoxic regimens. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this prospective international observational multicenter study in hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) patients are to establish the nature, incidence and temporal relationship of oral complications related to conditioning regimens (chemotherapy with or without total body irradiation), stem cell transplantation and the immunologic reactions (mainly graft-vs-host-disease) that may follow, and to determine what subjective and objective oral complications related to treatment can predict negative clinical and economic outcomes and reduced quality of life. METHODS: Adult patients at six study sites receiving full intensity conditioning, reduced intensity conditioning or nonmyeloablative conditioning, followed by autologous or allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell infusion, are included. A pre-treatment assessment includes medical conditions, planned chemo- and radiation therapy regimen, medications, allergies, social history, patient report of oral problems, dental history, subjective oral complaints, objective measures of oral conditions, current laboratory values, dental treatment recommended and untreated dental disease. Starting 1-3 days after hematopoietic stem cell infusion, a bedside assessment is completed 3 days per week until resolution of neutropenia. A patient questionnaire is also completed during hospitalization. Beyond this time, patients with continued oral mucositis or other oral problems are followed 1 day per week in an inpatient or outpatient setting. Additional visits for urgent care for acute oral problems after hospitalization are documented. Autologous transplant patients are being followed up at 100 days (SD 30 days) and at 1 year (SD 30 days) post-transplantation to identify any long-term side effects. Patients treated with allogeneic transplantation are being followed at 100 days (SD 30 days), 6 months (SD 30 days), and 12 months (SD 30 days). The follow-up assessments include cancer response to therapy, current medical conditions, medications, subjective and objective oral findings, quality of life measures and laboratory values. The targeted enrollment is 254 patients who have received HSCT. RESULTS: A total of 260 participants have been enrolled, with 233 (91%) who have received HSCT. We anticipate enrollment of 20-30 additional participants to obtain the sample size of 254 enrolled participants who have received HSCT. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the ongoing prospective study will provide a unique dataset to understand the impact of oral complications on patients undergoing HSCT and provide needed evidence for guidelines regarding the management of this patient cohort.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.235
Threshold uncertainty score0.701

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.264
GPT teacher head0.609
Teacher spread0.345 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations33
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicOral health in cancer treatmentFrench-language works237,207