MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3146038184 · doi:10.1002/pbc.28597

Supportive care for toxicities in children undergoing radiation therapy

2021· review· en· W3146038184 on OpenAlexaff
Samir Patel, John A. Vargo, Adam C. Olson, Anita Mahajan

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Blood & Cancer · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsStollery Children's HospitalUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care medicineAdverse effectRadiation therapyQuality of life (healthcare)EtiologyCancer therapyAffect (linguistics)CancerSurgeryInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Radiation therapy (RT) is an integral part of the management of many pediatric tumors; however, it is associated with both acute and permanent adverse events that can significantly impact a child's quality of life, lead to treatment delays, and potentially affect outcomes of cancer therapy. Prevention, early detection, and optimal management of these adverse effects will help reduce their impact on the patients' quality of life and overall well-being. Unfortunately, there has not been a coordinated effort to study the etiology, evaluate risk factors, and explore novel treatments for these conditions. Studies of supportive care for children undergoing RT are often small and uncontrolled. This review will focus on the impact of irradiation on the different organ systems and their current management. Further studies are required to improve our understanding of the contributing factors and explore novel treatment options for these adverse effects and to enable children and their families to better cope with some of the unavoidable toxicities following multimodality 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.329 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric Blood & CancerSame topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207