MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408509022 · doi:10.1188/25.cjon.e47-e51

Updating the Carboplatin Hypersensitivity Protocol: Two Case Studies

2025· article· en· W4408509022 on OpenAlexaff
Kimberly Ann Stout

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical journal of oncology nursing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDrug-Induced Adverse Reactions
Canadian institutionsMiller Group (Canada)Kimberly-Clark (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCarboplatinProtocol (science)Hypersensitivity reactionInternal medicineChemotherapyPathologyCisplatinAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CARBOPLATIN IS A PLATINUM-BASED CHEMOTHERAPEUTIC DRUG that nurses infuse in patients with gynecologic cancers, particularly in patients with ovarian cancer.Women who are reexposed to carboplatin in the recurrent disease setting are at increased risk for a platinum hypersensitivity reaction (HSR).The following are risk factors associated with platinum HSR: six or more cycles of platinum, cumulative platinum dose, increased interval from prior platinum exposure, platinum doublet with paclitaxel, BRCA1/BRCA2 variations, and a history of prior systemic allergic reactions (Vetter et al., 2019).These reactions can include various symptoms ranging from mild (e.g., facial flushing, pruritus), to moderate low risk (e.g., erythema, dyspnea without hypoxia), to moderate high risk (e.g., angioedema without anaphylaxis, hypotension), to severe (e.g., anaphylaxis, death) (Vetter et al., 2019).Despite these risks, clinicians understand the benefit of treating recurrent disease with carboplatin.For patients whose disease recurs more than six months after the last treatment with a platinum therapy, retreating with platinum therapy may improve overall survival (Takase et al., 2015).Carboplatin desensitization (CD) protocols can help safely re-treat patients with hypersensitivity (Altwerger et al., 2017).However, there is no universal CD protocol for clinicians to follow.Altwerger et al. (2017) and Vetter et al. ( 2019) discuss the existence of many protocols described for CD that last between 2 and 16 hours, with some protocols requiring multiple steps.Institutions can standardize protocols that they deem acceptable for their patients.As healthcare costs continue to rise, it is important for institutions to look at cost savings for the institution and the patient.A shorter CD protocol could save the pharmacy money.This could also mean savings for nursing services.The patient benefits of CD include decreased length of stay, reduced exposure to infections, and decreased potential for falls in the hospital setting (Tipton et al., 2021).In addition, patients may save money on co-pays or admission costs not covered by their insurance for an overnight stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) related to their CD.The original CD protocol at an 872-bed academic medical institution in the southeastern United States was 12 diluted bags of carboplatin delivered over 8.5 hours.This was a time-consuming and expensive process.Depending on the length of the CD session, it could involve as many as three nurses receiving overtime pay and the patient potentially staying overnight in the ICU.The inpatient pharmacy made the 12 bags of diluted carboplatin in about one hour; however, other pharmacy duties often took precedence over this task, resulting in additional hours passing before the first bag arrived

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.644

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.172
GPT teacher head0.587
Teacher spread0.415 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical journal of oncology nursingSame topicDrug-Induced Adverse ReactionsFrench-language works237,207