MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3083074211 · doi:10.1002/pbc.28647

Assessment of provider perspectives on otoprotection research for children and adolescents: A Children's Oncology Group Cancer Control and Supportive Care Committee survey

2020· article· en· W3083074211 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Etan Orgel, David R. Freyer, Nicole J. Ullrich, Kristina K. Hardy, Stefanie M. Thomas, Christopher C. Dvorak, Adam J. Esbenshade

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Blood & Cancer · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on Deafness and Other Communication DisordersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Cancer InstituteSt. Baldrick's Foundation
KeywordsMedicineFamily medicineClinical trialOtotoxicityModalitiesIntensive care medicineInternal medicineCisplatinChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cisplatin-induced hearing loss (CIHL) is a common and debilitating toxicity for childhood cancer survivors. Understanding provider perspectives is crucial to developing otoprotection studies that are both informative and feasible. Two international trials (ACCL0431 and SIOPEL6) investigated the drug sodium thiosulfate (STS) as an otoprotectant, but definitive interpretation of the findings of these trials has been challenging. Adoption of STS has therefore been uneven, and provider perspectives on its role are unknown. PROCEDURE: The Children's Oncology Group (COG) Cancer Control and Supportive Care Neurotoxicity Subcommittee therefore conducted a survey of providers at COG institutions to determine perspectives on pediatric otoprotection practices and research surrounding three major themes: (1) prevalence of routine use of STS with cisplatin-based regimens, (2) application of audiometry to cisplatin therapy, and (3) preferred modalities for otoprotection research. RESULTS: Survey respondents (45%, 44/98 surveyed institutions) were of diverse institutional sizes, practice settings, and geographical locations primarily in the United States and Canada. Overall, respondents considered CIHL an important toxicity and indicated strong enthusiasm for future studies (98%, 40/41). Results indicated that while STS was the current or planned standard of care in a minority of responding institutions (36%, 16/44), most sites were receptive to its inclusion in appropriate study designs. Application of audiometry for ototoxicity monitoring varied widely across sites. For otoprotection research, systemic agents were preferred (68%, 28/41) as compared with intratympanic approaches. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that pediatric otoprotection trials remain of interest to providers; the emphasis of these trials should remain on systemic and not intratympanic therapy.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.326 · 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.

Study designObservational
DomainEvaluation
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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric Blood & CancerSame topicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, GeneticsFrench-language works237,207