MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4386212718 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3281090/v1

Lessons Learnt in the First Year of an Australian Pediatric Cardio Oncology Clinic

2023· preprint· en· W4386212718 on OpenAlexaff
Claudia Toro, Ben Felmingham, Mangesh Jhadav, David S. Celermajer, André La Gerche, John O’Sullivan, Sanjeev Kumar, Marion K. Mateos, Joy M. Fulbright, Dinisha Govender, Lane Collier, Michael Cheung, David D. Eisenstat, Peter Lange, Julian Ayer, David A. Elliott, Rachel Conyers

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineReferralPediatric oncologyCardiotoxicityInternal medicineIntensive care medicinePediatricsCancerChemotherapyFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Modern oncological therapies together with chemotherapy and radiotherapy have broadened the agents that can cause cardiac sequelae, which can manifest for pediatric oncology patients while on active treatment. Recommendations for high-risk patients who should be monitored in a pediatric cardio-oncology clinic have previously been developed by expert Delphi consensus by our group. In 2022 we opened our first multidisciplinary pediatric cardio-oncology clinic adhering to these recommendations in surveillance and management. Objectives: Our pediatric cardio-oncology clinic aimed to: (i) Document cardiovascular toxicities observed within a pediatric cardio-oncology clinic and (ii) Evaluate the applicability of the Australian and New Zealand Pediatric Cardio-Oncology recommendations. Methods: Monthly multidisciplinary cardio-oncology clinics were conducted in an Australian tertiary pediatric hospital. Structured standardised approaches to assessment were built into the electronic medical record (EMR). All patients underwent baseline echocardiogram and electrocardiogram assessment together with vital signs in conjunction with standard history and examination. Results: Nineteen (54%) individuals had a documented cardiovascular toxicity or pre-existing risk factor prior to referral. The two most common cardiovascular toxicities documented during clinic review included Left Ventricular Dysfunction (LVD) and hypertension. Of note 3 (8.1%) patients had CTCAE grade III LVD. An additional 10 (27%) patients reviewed in clinic had CTCAE grade I hypertension. None of these patients had hypertension noted within their referral. Cascade testing for cardiac history was warranted in 2 (5.4%) of patients. Conclusions: Pediatric cardio-oncology clinics are likely beneficial to documenting previously unrecognised cardiotoxicity and relevant cardiac family histories, whilst providing an opportunity to address lifestyle risk factors.

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)0.007
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.313
GPT teacher head0.539
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Square→Same topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life→French-language works237,207→