Survey of Anaphylaxis during Rasburicase Re-Administration in Patients with Hematological Malignancies Using a Japanese Claims Database
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Management of tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) associated with cancer chemotherapy for malignant tumors is important because of its potentially fatal course. The use of rasburicase, a recombinant urate oxidase, is recommended for TLS; however, because rasburicase is an enzymatic drug, one should be cautious of anaphylaxis during administration. Using claims data in Japan, we investigated the rate of rasburicase re-administration and the occurrence of anaphylaxis during re-administration in patients with hematopoietic malignancies in a multicenter setting. Re-administration of rasburicase was defined as administration after an interval of 21 days from the first dose. Of 373 patients, 18 were re-administered rasburicase (re-administration rate: 4.8%). No patient developed anaphylaxis. The median number of days from the first to the last dose of rasburicase was 256.5 days (interquartile range: 138.8-455.8 days). The median daily dose was 7.5 mg (4.5-11.3 mg), and the median total dose was 33.8 mg (19.1-64.1 mg). This claims database analysis revealed that the re-administration rate of rasburicase was low in Japanese patients with hematopoietic malignancies, suggesting that rasburicase was being used appropriately, and that associated anaphylaxis was not observed.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".