MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7095179976

ORIGINAL ARTICLE Real world experience with dose dense ac-paclitaxel: Two canadian cancer centers ’ experience

2016· article· en· W7095179976 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeutropenia and Cancer Infections
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnemiaCancerNeutropeniaRegimenFebrile neutropeniaBreast cancerIncidence (geometry)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Early breast cancer treatment with dose dense Adriamycin-Cyclophosphamide and Paclitaxel (AC-P) has been shown to increase survival. However, it is commonly associated with neutropenia, anemia or both. This retrospective chart review study was done to evaluate the real world experience with this regimen and included a series of 83 adult women from the London Regional Cancer Program and 50 patients from the Windsor Regional Cancer Center who were treated with dose dense adjuvant AC-P for early breast cancer from January 2009 to August 2012. Toxicities like febrile neutropenia (FN) and anemia based on NCIC-CTC v2 criteria and grades were recorded along with the use of erythropoietin stimulating agents (ESA), Neupogen or Neulasta, and blood transfusion. The majority of our patients (88.72%) were able to complete all 8 cycles of AC-Taxol, although 32 of these patients (24.06%) experienced delay during their treatment. Grade 3 anemia was seen in one patient after cycle #4 and increased to two patients after both cycles 5 and 7. Only one patient developed grade 4 anemia, observed in the 5th cycle. Blood transfusion was given to sixteen patients and three patients received ESA. The incidence of febrile neutropenia was only

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)0.003
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 score0.386
Threshold uncertainty score0.776

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.310 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNeutropenia and Cancer InfectionsFrench-language works237,207