Adherence to pediatric acute chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting guidelines in Canadian hospitals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) impacts quality of life for patients. Guidelines for emetogenicity classification and prevention of CINV in children were recently published and endorsed by pediatric oncology organizations. PROCEDURE: A multicenter chart review was performed at four Canadian pediatric oncology centers examining rates of prescribing adherence to CINV guidelines between January 2012 and December 2015. Eligible patients received their first chemotherapy course of highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). RESULTS: Guideline adherence was described in 204 patients as antiemetic-only guideline adherence (AGA; examined medication/class prescribed only) and complete guideline adherence (CGA; examined medication/class, dose, frequency, and duration prescribed). Adherence was 29% (HEC 30%, MEC 19%, P = 0.1) and 2% for AGA and CGA patients, respectively. Vomiting in the first 24 h was experienced by 24% of AGA and 34% of non-AGA patients (P = 0.13), with mean breakthrough medication doses similar between AGA and non-AGA groups (HEC 1.8 vs 1.5, P = 0.45; MEC 3 vs 1.42, P = 0.35). In the first 24 h, HEC AGA patients achieved a complete control rate of 37% vs 45% for non-AGA patients (P = 0.31), while patients receiving AGA therapy for MEC achieved a complete control rate of 80% vs 24% for non-AGA patients (P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to guidelines was low across all four pediatric institutions. Each center used different approaches to implement pediatric CINV guidelines. Complete CINV control was low, with reports of emesis high, indicating that patients are not receiving optimal treatment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".