Real-World Data to Assess the Proportion of Patients Admitted for Febrile Neutropenia That Could Be Considered at Low Risk: The Experience of the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a serious complication of chemotherapy that often leads to hospitalization in cancer patients. It is now well-established that carefully selected patients can be safely treated on an outpatient basis. The objective of this study was to assess the number and proportion of patients hospitalized for FN in a university hospital setting who would have met the low-risk criteria for FN, and whether these patients experienced favorable outcomes during hospitalization. We conducted a retrospective study of all patients admitted for FN at three hospitals in Quebec City between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2019. Patients with leukemia and those who had undergone stem cell transplants were excluded. A retrospective chart review was performed to establish the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) score for each patient. Based on predefined criteria, we also determined whether the clinical course was favorable or unfavorable. A total of 177 hospitalizations met our inclusion criteria. We found that 101/177 (57.1%) of the hospitalized patients met the low-risk FN criteria according to their MASCC score. Among these, 74/177 (41.8%) met all the criteria for outpatient treatment. The majority of these patients had a favorable outcome (70/74, 94.6%). In contrast, among patients who did not meet the eligibility criteria for outpatient treatment, 44.7% (46/103) experienced favorable outcomes during their hospitalization. These data highlight the importance of patient selection for outpatient care.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".