Association between in-line filtration and Type I hypersensitivity reactions in pediatric oncology patients receiving intravenous etoposide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to describe hypersensitivity reactions with and without the use of in-line filters during intravenous etoposide therapy in pediatric oncology patients. This was a retrospective review of all patients treated in the Division of Oncology/Hematology/Bone Marrow Transplant at British Columbia Children's Hospital with intravenous etoposide between December 1, 2013 and February 1, 2018. Hypersensitivity reactions and anaphylaxis associated with etoposide infusions were compared over time, including 12 months prior to, 27 months during the use of, and for 12 months after the discontinuation of in-line filtration. There were 192 patients (median age 6.0 (IQR 2.8-13.0) years treated with etoposide and 486 etoposide infusions including 137 (28%) before, 261 (54%) during and 88 (18%) after use of in-line filters at our center. Twenty-six of 486 (5%) and 13/486 (3%) of infusions resulted in a type I hypersensitivity reaction and anaphylaxis, respectively. There were 2/137 (1%), 36/261 (14%) and 1/88 (1%) infusion reactions prior to, during and after in-line filter use, respectively. Infusion reactions during the in-line filter period were higher than during the pre-filter (Z = 3.978; p < 0.001) and post-filter (Z = 3.335; p < 0.001) periods of the study. These data suggest that the use of in-line filtration may be associated with increased frequency of hypersensitivity reactions to etoposide in pediatric cancer patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".