Managing 5FU Cardiotoxicity in Colorectal Cancer Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Matthew Anaka, Omar Abdel-Rahman Department of Oncology, Cross Cancer Institute, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, CanadaCorrespondence: Omar Abdel-Rahman, Department of Oncology, Cross Cancer Institute, University of Alberta, 11560 University Avenue, Edmonton, AB, T6G 1Z2, Canada, Tel +1 780-432-8290, Fax +1 780-432-8888, Email Omar.abdelsalam@ahs.caAbstract: Fluorouracil (5FU) is the backbone chemotherapy agent in the treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC). Cardiotoxicity represents an uncommon but serious side effect of treatment with 5FU. Here, we review the current literature on 5FU-cardiotoxicity in the setting of CRC specifically, with a focus on data from the modern era of combination chemotherapy. Despite decades of study, there is little consensus on risk factors and biomarkers for 5FU-cardiotoxicity, nor how patients with CRC should be managed following a cardiotoxicity event. Given the elevated risk of recurrent cardiotoxicity on rechallenge, the use of alternative regimens that do not contain 5FU is a critical aspect of management. Data on the cardiotoxicity risk and efficacy of non-5FU regimens in CRC are therefore reviewed in detail.Keywords: fluoropyrimidine, chemotherapy, adverse events, capecitabine, fluorouracil
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.055 | 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 teacher head, 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".