MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Retrospective study on the management of patients admitted for febrile neutropenia and considered to be at low risk at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Québec.

2021· article· en· W3169900915 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tommy Jean, Julie Lemieux, Geneviève Soucy, Francis Caron, Dominique Leblanc

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeutropenia and Cancer Infections
Canadian institutionsCentre hospitalier universitaire de QuébecUniversité LavalHôpital de l'Enfant-Jésus
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFebrile neutropeniaNeutropeniaRetrospective cohort studyCancerInternal medicinePediatricsIntensive care medicineChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e18762 Background: Febrile neutropenia is a serious complication of chemotherapy leading to hospitalization in cancer patients. According to a practice guidelines published by ASCO (American Society of clinical Oncology) and IDSA (Infectious Diseases Society of American) in 2018, patients meeting the criteria for low-risk neutropenia according to the MASCC score (Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer Score) could be treated as outpatient and thus avoid hospitalization. The objective of the study was to assess the number and proportion of patients who were hospitalized for febrile neutropenia in university hospital that would have met the low risk criteria of febrile neutropenia. We also wanted to know if these patients had experienced a favorable outcome during hospitalization. Methods: We performed a retrospective study including all patients admitted for febrile neutropenia in 3 hospitals in Quebec City during the period from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2019. We excluded patients with leukemia, as well as stem cell transplant patients. The chart review retrospectively established the MASCC score for each patient. We also established according to predefined criteria whether the clinical course was favorable or unfavorable. Results: A total of 177 hospitalizations met our inclusion criteria. We found that 101/177 (57.1%) of hospitalized patients met the criteria for low-risk neutropenia according to the MASCC score (score of 21 and above). Of this number 74/177 (41.8%) presented all the criteria suggested for receiving outpatient treatment. In these patients 70/177 (39.5%) presented a favorable evolution during hospitalization and thus 4/177 (2.3%) presented an unfavorable evolution. Among these, 2 patients presented with infections considered major (2 bacteremia), 1 patient developed acute renal failure, and 1 other patient developed delirium. There was no death or admission to the intensive care unit in these 4 patients. Conclusions: According to this retrospective study, about 40% of patients admitted for febrile neutropenia filled the criteria of low risk febrile neutropenia and could be treated as outpatient. Given this represents a significant proportion of patients, a protocol for systematic follow-up of outpatient treatment with low-risk febrile neutropenia should be put in place.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.284

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.379
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicNeutropenia and Cancer InfectionsFrench-language works237,207