Updating the Carboplatin Hypersensitivity Protocol: Two Case Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Carboplatin is used to treat gynecologic cancers. Reexposure to carboplatin in the recurrent disease setting increases the risk of hypersensitivity reactions, which can be mild or cause death. A carboplatin desensitization protocol was developed to help with patient tolerance, but no standard protocol existed. OBJECTIVES: This protocol was updated to replace an older desensitization protocol, align with best practices, and bring cost savings to the institution through reduced labor and shortened hospital stays. METHODS: The updated four-bag, four-hour protocol was implemented in patient care on March 8, 2024. A total of five desensitizations were completed. Each desensitization was retrospectively reviewed and assessed for safety and tolerability using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. FINDINGS: Five desensitizations successfully occurred for two patients between March 8 and July 13, 2024. Each desensitization saved $108 in pharmacy supply costs and $92 in pharmacy labor costs. Saved nursing costs totaled about $400 for each desensitization.
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 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".