MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3210735001 · doi:10.1136/oem-2021-epi.8

O-242 Literature review of biological monitoring studies to assess healthcare worker’s exposure to antineoplastic drugs

2021· article· en· W3210735001 on OpenAlexaff
Naqiyah Motiwala, Chun‐Yip Hon

Bibliographic record

VenueOral Presentations · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicSafe Handling of Antineoplastic Drugs
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersChina Medical University, TaiwanChina Medical University
KeywordsMedicineAntineoplastic DrugsUrineHealth carePharmacyPharmacistOccupational exposureDrugEnvironmental healthToxicologyEmergency medicineIntensive care medicinePharmacologyInternal medicineFamily medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Introduction</h3> Antineoplastic drugs, also known as hazardous drugs, are used to treat cancer. Healthcare workers’ exposure to these agents may lead to DNA damage and adverse reproductive effects. Exposure to antineoplastic drugs can be assessed via biological monitoring. <h3>Objectives</h3> To conduct a literature review of studies examining biological monitoring of healthcare workers exposed to antineoplastic drugs to identify trends and knowledge gaps. <h3>Methods</h3> The literature search was performed on three databases: Proquest, Web of Science and PubMed. For inclusion, an article had to be in English and published between 2005 and 2020. Search terms included ‘antineoplastic drugs’ or ‘hazardous drugs’ AND ‘occupational’ or ‘healthcare workers’ or ‘pharmacist’ or ‘nurse’ AND ‘blood’ or ‘urine’ or ‘biomarkers’. <h3>Results</h3> Overall, the literature review resulted in 70 unique articles - 30 examined urine as the matrix, 31 had non-urine samples and nine papers collected both urine and non-urine samples. Regarding the urine sampling studies, researchers collected either spot samples or 24-hr voids. Cyclophosphamide was the most common analyte (69%) with a detection limit ranging from 0.09 to 0.20 ng/ml. Approximately 75% of the articles reported at least one urine sample had detectable levels of drug. In some instances, urinary drug contamination was found even though workers wore personal protective equipment. For those studies that collected other matrices, blood and exfoliated buccal cells were the most common specimens. A majority (81%) reported that there was a statistically significant difference in results between exposed and non-exposed populations. Many studies reported that safe work practices, which includes the use of personal protective equipment, may not be adequate to protect healthcare workers. <h3>Conclusion</h3> There is value in conducting biological monitoring to assess healthcare workers’ exposure to antineoplastic drugs. However, because of the variability in sampling and analytical methods, standardization is recommended to ensure biological monitoring results are comparable.

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)0.005
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 score0.186
Threshold uncertainty score0.802

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.241
GPT teacher head0.519
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOral PresentationsSame topicSafe Handling of Antineoplastic DrugsFrench-language works237,207