MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2910770502 · doi:10.1136/ejhpharm-2018-001705

External contamination of commercial containers by antineoplastic agents: a literature review

2019· review· en· W2910770502 on OpenAlex
Delphine Hilliquin, Cynthia Tanguay, Jean‐François Bussières

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Hospital Pharmacy · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicSafe Handling of Antineoplastic Drugs
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContaminationAntineoplastic DrugsVialDrug packagingWaste managementToxicologyEnvironmental scienceMedicineChemistryPharmacologyEngineeringChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study was to review the literature regarding the external contamination of commercial vials by antineoplastic drugs. A PubMed and CINAHL searches from 1 January 1990 to 1 May 2018 was performed with the terms: « antineoplastic agents », « environmental monitoring », « drug packaging », « vials » and « contamination ». Articles that presented results on the external contamination of commercial vials were included. Twenty-four articles were identified from 11 countries. A total of 4248 vials were sampled from 28 manufacturers. Traces were found on 56% (2379/4248) of vials. A maximum of 150 000 ng was measured on a glass vial of fluorouracil. This literature review showed that the exterior of the majority of commercial antineoplastic vials was contaminated. Manufacturers should limit this contamination. Centres are also encouraged to clean the vials on receipt. Personal protection equipment should be worn at all steps of the drug-use process.

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.555
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.372 · 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