MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409182905 · doi:10.1007/s00520-025-09387-9

Practice patterns in the diagnosis and management of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy in adolescents and young adults with cancer: a survey of oncologists

2025· article· en· W4409182905 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer A. Belsky, L. Lee Dupuis, Lillian Sung, Allie Carter, Audrey Leisinger, Etan Orgel, Susan K. Parsons, Michael Roth

Bibliographic record

VenueSupportive Care in Cancer · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Treatment and Pharmacology
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePeripheral neuropathyVincristineCancerYoung adultMedical recordPediatric oncologyChemotherapyNursing researchInternal medicineIntensive care medicineCyclophosphamideNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) affects > 78% of oncology patients and causes detrimental side effects. There may be practice heterogenicity in CIPN management amongst oncologists treating pediatric, adolescent young adult (AYA), and adult patients with cancer. We sought to evaluate the practice patterns of oncologists regarding their management of CIPN in AYAs with cancer. METHODS: A survey was developed and sent to pediatric and medical oncologists from across the United States. Scenarios included an 18-year-old receiving vincristine (VCR) with mild neuropathy (Scenario 1) and moderate/severe neuropathy (Scenario 2). Respondents were asked how they would manage each patient. Differences between pediatric and medical oncologists' management were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 179 responses were submitted by 132 (73.7%) pediatric, 44 (24.6%) medical oncologists, and 3 (1.6%) oncologists who care for both pediatric and adult patients. Over half of respondents for Scenario 1 would refer the patient to physical therapy (PT) (56.8%), 38.1% would prescribe a pharmacologic agent, and 27.8% would dose reduce/omit vincristine. For Scenario 2, most (81.8%) would dose reduce/omit vincristine, 69.3% would refer for PT, and 44.9% would start a pharmacologic agent. On multivariable analyses, medical oncologists were more likely to dose reduce/omit vincristine for Scenario 1 (OR, 7.68; 95% CI, 3.24-18.22) and Scenario 2 (OR, 5.52; 95% CI, 1.37-22.18, and less likely to refer to PT for Scenario 1 (OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.05-0.31) and Scenario 2 (OR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.08-0.41). CONCLUSION: Our survey suggests a broad spectrum of CIPN management in AYAs with cancer. The heterogenicity in practices and significant differences between pediatric and medical oncologists underscores an urgent need to better understand the source of heterogeneity in CIPN management practices and barriers to evidence-based care delivery.

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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.351 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSupportive Care in CancerSame topicCancer Treatment and PharmacologyFrench-language works237,207