MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2806986605 · doi:10.1002/cam4.1563

Prevention of cisplatin‐induced hearing loss in children: Informing the design of future clinical trials

2018· article· en· W2806986605 on OpenAlexaff
Lori M. Minasian, A. Lindsay Frazier, Lillian Sung, Ann M. O’Mara, Joseph Kelaghan, Kay W. Chang, Mark Krailo, Brad H. Pollock, Gregory H. Reaman, David R. Freyer

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Medicine · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsClinical trialMedicineGrading (engineering)Clinical study designHearing lossPsychological interventionSample size determinationIntensive care medicineRisk analysis (engineering)AudiologyInternal medicineEngineeringPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cisplatin is an essential chemotherapeutic agent in the treatment of many pediatric cancers. Unfortunately, cisplatin-induced hearing loss (CIHL) is a common, clinically significant side effect with life-long ramifications, particularly for young children. ACCL05C1 and ACCL0431 are two recently completed Children's Oncology Group studies focused on the measurement and prevention of CIHL. The purpose of this paper was to gain insights from ACCL05C1 and ACCL0431, the first published cooperative group studies dedicated solely to CIHL, to inform the design of future pediatric otoprotection trials. Use of otoprotective agents is an attractive strategy for preventing CIHL, but their successful development must overcome a unique constellation of methodological challenges related to translating preclinical research into clinical trials that are feasible, evaluate practical interventions, and limit risk. Issues particularly important for children include use of appropriate methods for hearing assessment and CIHL severity grading, and use of trial designs that are well-informed by preclinical models and suitable for relatively small sample sizes. Increasing interest has made available new funding opportunities for expanding this urgently needed research.

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)0.146
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.170
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.146
Threshold uncertainty score0.774

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1460.170
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.312
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.172 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations20
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer MedicineSame topicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, GeneticsFrench-language works237,207