Risk of pulmonary toxicity of bleomycin and filgrastim
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives To estimate the relative risk of pulmonary toxicity in patients exposed to a bleomycin-based chemotherapy including filgrastim compared to a similar chemotherapy without filgrastim. Methods We conducted a nested case–control study of patients treated with BEP (bleomycin, etoposide and cisplatin) for germ cell cancer or with ABVD (doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine and dacarbazine) for Hodgkin’s lymphoma at the Hôtel-Dieu de Lévis Hospital between 31 October 2000 and 30 June 2016. The relative risk was estimated by an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) using a propensity score-adjusted regression analysis. Results Thirteen cases of pulmonary toxicity, representing 14.7% of the 88 patients included in the study, were matched with 65 controls. A higher proportion of women (31.8%) than men (11.3%) developed pulmonary toxicity although the difference was not statistically significant ( P = 0.08). Within the cohort, two deaths related to lung toxicity were observed among cases where no filgrastim was used. The risk of pulmonary toxicity associated with the addition of filgrastim was not statistically significant (aOR = 2.48 95% CI = 0.50 to 12.19). Conclusion The results add further evidence that the concomitant use of filgrastim might not increase the risk of pulmonary toxicity of bleomycin. It also suggests that female patients might be more likely to develop this adverse effect. A clinical trial would be needed to confirm this result.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".