Clinical decisions following implementation of asparaginase activity monitoring in pediatric patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia: Experience from a single‐center study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We undertook this retrospective study to describe decisions made following asparaginase activity monitoring implementation at our center. Clinically apparent reactions (CARs) and asparaginase activity monitoring costs were described. Patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia, aged <18 years who received asparaginase between April 2016 and September 2017, were included. Decisions made following receipt of asparaginase activity results were categorized as continuation, modification, premedication, or discontinuation. We included 129 patients (median age: 5.33 years) receiving 565 asparaginase doses. CARs were observed following 25 asparaginase doses (19/361 [5.3%] pegaspargase). A total of 224 asparaginase activity levels were ordered in 88 patients. Following receipt of 190 asparaginase activity results, asparaginase therapy was continued, modified, or premedicated in 188 (98.9%), 1 (0.005%), and 1 (0.005%) cases, respectively. Inadequate asparaginase activity was observed in three patients receiving Erwinia asparaginase. Asparaginase activity monitoring allowed patients with pegaspargase-associated CAR and adequate activity to continue therapy unchanged and was cost neutral.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".