MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402322690 · doi:10.1002/pbc.31295

Clinical practice guideline‐inconsistent chemotherapy‐induced vomiting prophylaxis in pediatric cancer patients in community settings: A Children's Oncology Group study

2024· article· en· W4402322690 on OpenAlexaff
Aaron Sugalski, Allison Grimes, Michelle M. Nuño, Subhash Ramakrishnan, Melissa Beauchemin, Paula D. Robinson, Nancy Santesso, Alexandra Walsh, Andrea Rothfus Wrightson, Lolie C. Yu, Susan K. Parsons, Lillian Sung, L. Lee Dupuis

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Blood & Cancer · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNausea and vomiting management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoPediatric Oncology GroupSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenMcMaster UniversityInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesImpact
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthU.S. Department of DefenseSeagenServierSt. Baldrick's FoundationDana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center
KeywordsMedicineGuidelineOdds ratioInternal medicineConfidence intervalVomitingCancerCpG siteOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to determine the proportion of patients receiving clinical practice guideline (CPG)-inconsistent care related to chemotherapy-induced vomiting (CIV) prophylaxis, and to describe the association between CPG-inconsistent care and site size. The association between delivery of CPG-inconsistent care and patient outcomes (CIV control, admission prolongation, and unplanned healthcare visits) was also described. METHODS: This was a retrospective study conducted at Children's Oncology Group (COG) National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) sites. Eligible patients received highly (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) as inpatients from January 2014 through December 2015, and were previously enrolled in a COG study. The COG generated a patient list from which patients were randomly selected for chart review by participating sites. A central panel adjudicated CIV prophylaxis received as CPG-consistent or -inconsistent. RESULTS: Twenty-four sites participated. Over half of patients received CPG-inconsistent CIV prophylaxis (HEC: 59/112, 52.6%; MEC: 119/215, 55.3%). The most common reasons for CPG-inconsistency were shortened duration of antiemetic administration or omission of dexamethasone. Site size was not found to be associated with CPG-inconsistent care delivery (HEC: adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.76-1.23; MEC: adjusted OR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.92-1.24). Additionally, there was no statistically significant association between receipt of CPG-inconsistent care and patient outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving MEC or HEC often received CPG-inconsistent CIV prophylaxis. Site size was not associated with receipt of CPG-inconsistent care. Future studies should evaluate strategies to improve CIV control among pediatric oncology patients including those aimed at improving CPG adherence.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.360 · 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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric Blood & CancerSame topicNausea and vomiting managementFrench-language works237,207