Evaluation of an oral sodium bicarbonate protocol for high-dose methotrexate urine alkalinization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose: Intravenous (IV) sodium bicarbonate is considered standard therapy for high-dose methotrexate (HDMTX) urine alkalinization. Due to a national IV sodium bicarbonate shortage, an oral (PO) sodium bicarbonate protocol was implemented by Alberta Health Services (AHS) for HDMTX urine alkalinization. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the PO sodium bicarbonate protocol compared to IV sodium bicarbonate for HDMTX urine alkalinization. Methods: A retrospective chart review of adult patients who received HDMTX (>500 mg/m2) with sodium bicarbonate for urine alkalinization at 4 hospitals in Alberta was conducted. Patients who received IV sodium bicarbonate between January-June 2017 and PO sodium bicarbonate between July-December 2017 were compared for the primary outcome of time to methotrexate clearance. Results: A total of 84 and 78 HDMTX cycles were included in the IV and PO cohorts, respectively. No difference in time to methotrexate clearance was seen between the IV and PO cohorts, 91.6 (± 35.4) hours and 95.2 (± 44) hours respectively; p=0.5. The proportion of HDMTX cycles that experienced a >25% increase in serum creatinine was not statistically significant, IV protocol 12% and PO protocol 5%; p=0.13. Nausea and emesis occurred more frequently in the PO cohort than the IV cohort, though rarely resulted in refused doses or change to alternate sodium bicarbonate formulations.Conclusions: The results of this study indicate that the AHS PO sodium bicarbonate protocol was no different in time to methotrexate clearance or rates of increased serum creatinine when compared to IV sodium bicarbonate.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".