IGHG Recommendations for Anthracycline and Anthraquinone Cardiac Dysfunction Equivalence Ratios After Childhood Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anthracycline and anthraquinone agents are major contributors to cancer therapy-related cardiac dysfunction in childhood cancer. However, evidence-based equivalence ratios for estimating individual risk have not been incorporated into international surveillance guidelines. The International Late Effects of Childhood Cancer Guideline Harmonization Group systematically reviewed the literature on equivalence ratios for doxorubicin, daunorubicin, epirubicin, idarubicin, and mitoxantrone. Based on available evidence, benefit-harm considerations, and expert consensus, the panel concluded that the risk of cardiac dysfunction is lower with daunorubicin and higher with mitoxantrone compared with doxorubicin (moderate-quality evidence; strong recommendation). The panel recommends using an approximate ratio of 0.6 to convert daunorubicin to a doxorubicin-equivalent dose and a ratio of 10.5 for mitoxantrone (low-quality evidence; moderate recommendation). No recommendation was made for epirubicin or idarubicin due to inconclusive evidence.
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 | 0.019 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.007 |
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".