MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383481940 · doi:10.1002/pbc.30550

Reevaluation of sodium thiosulfate otoprotection using the consensus International Society of Paediatric Oncology Ototoxicity Scale: A report from the Children's Oncology Group study ACCL0431

2023· article· en· W4383481940 on OpenAlexaff
Etan Orgel, Kristin R. Knight, Doojduen Villaluna, Mark Krailo, Adam J. Esbenshade, Lillian Sung, David R. Freyer

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Blood & Cancer · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEar and Head Tumors
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
FundersNational Institute on Deafness and Other Communication DisordersNational Institutes of HealthNational Cancer InstituteSt. Baldrick's Foundation
KeywordsMedicineSodium thiosulfateOtotoxicityOncologyRandomized controlled trialScale (ratio)Clinical trialInternal medicineClinical OncologyCisplatinChemotherapyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In two randomized trials (Children's Oncology Group ACCL0431 and International Childhood Liver Tumour Strategy Group SIOPEL-6), sodium thiosulfate (STS) demonstrated efficacy in preventing cisplatin-induced hearing loss (CIHL). However, the measures used in those trials have been superseded by the consensus International Society of Paediatric Oncology (SIOP) Ototoxicity Scale. To provide benchmark data for STS efficacy when using this contemporary scale, we reanalyzed ACCL0431 hearing outcomes with the SIOP scale and using multiple timepoints. Compared to the control arm, STS significantly reduced CIHL when assessed by the SIOP scale across these different approaches. These results provide critical data to inform treatment discussions and support future potential trial designs comparing otoprotectants.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric Blood & CancerSame topicEar and Head TumorsFrench-language works237,207