MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3133530351 · doi:10.1097/ftd.0000000000000862

Quality Control of Busulfan Plasma Quantitation, Modeling, and Dosing: An Interlaboratory Proficiency Testing Program

2021· article· en· W3133530351 on OpenAlexaff
Jeannine S. McCune, Arjen M. Punt, Rosa F. Yeh, L. Lee Dupuis, Dina M. Kweekel, Eric J. F. Franssen, James Ritchie, Erik van Maarseveen, Alwin D. R. Huitema

Bibliographic record

VenueTherapeutic Drug Monitoring · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusulfanDosingPharmacokineticsMedicineTherapeutic drug monitoringPharmacologyBioequivalenceMedical physicsHematopoietic stem cell transplantationInternal medicineTransplantation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Personalizing busulfan doses to target a narrow plasma exposure has improved the efficacy and lowered the toxicity of busulfan-based conditioning regimens used in hematopoietic cell transplant. Regional regulations guide interlaboratory proficiency testing for busulfan concentration quantification and monitoring. To date, there have been no comparisons of the busulfan pharmacokinetic modeling and dose recommendation protocols used in these laboratories. Here, in collaboration with the Dutch Association for Quality Assessment in Therapeutic Drug Monitoring and Clinical Toxicology, a novel interlaboratory proficiency program for the quantitation in plasma, pharmacokinetic modeling, and dosing of busulfan was designed. The methods and results of the first 2 rounds of this proficiency testing are described herein. METHODS: A novel method was developed to stabilize busulfan in N,N-dimethylacetamide, which allowed shipping of the proficiency samples without dry ice. In each round, participating laboratories reported their results for 2 proficiency samples (one low and one high busulfan concentrations) and a theoretical case assessing their pharmacokinetic modeling and dose recommendations. All participants were blinded to the answers; descriptive statistics were used to evaluate their overall performance. The guidelines suggested that answers within ±15% for busulfan concentrations and ±10% for busulfan plasma exposure and dose recommendation were to be considered accurate. RESULTS: Of the 4 proficiency samples evaluated, between 67% and 85% of the busulfan quantitation results were accurate (ie, within 85%-115% of the reference value). The majority (88% round #1; 71% round #2) of the dose recommendation answers were correct. CONCLUSIONS: A proficiency testing program by which laboratories are alerted to inaccuracies in their quantitation, pharmacokinetic modeling, and dose recommendations for busulfan in hematopoietic cell transplant recipients was developed. These rounds of proficiency testing suggests that additional educational efforts and proficiency rounds are needed to ensure appropriate busulfan dosing.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.251
Threshold uncertainty score0.617

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
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

Citations12
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTherapeutic Drug MonitoringSame topicHematopoietic Stem Cell TransplantationFrench-language works237,207