MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1499080100 · doi:10.5772/20877

Syndromes Associated with Intracranial Tumours: A Paediatric Neurosurgeon’s Perspective

2011· book-chapter· en· W1499080100 on OpenAlexaff
Adrianna Ranger

Bibliographic record

VenueInTech eBooks · 2011
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Western OntarioWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)NeurosurgeryMedicineGeneral surgeryRadiologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

rare and may be the result of chance rather than some increased risk for both conditions.In terms of the current chapter, these three disorders, as well as more-recently described phakomatoses, share the property of being associated with an increased risk of malignancies involving the central and, sometimes, peripheral nervous system. NeurofibromatosisNeurofibromatosis (NF) is the most common of all the phakomatosis syndromes, having been initially described by Frederick von Recklinghausen in the year 1882 (Crump, 1981).Also initially called von Recklinghausen's disease, the disorder received public attention in the highly-acclaimed 1981 movie, The Elephant Man, which portrayed the life of Joseph Merrick (who was erroneously called John in the film); though some controversy exists as to whether Merrick truly suffered from neurofibromatosis, another condition called Proteus syndrome, or some combination of the two (Legendre et al., 2011).For the purposes of this chapter, what is most significant is that, whereas CNS tumours are the rule in both types of neurofibromatosis, Proteus Syndrome generally is not associated with CNS tumours (Satter, 2007).Proteus syndrome is also much less common than neurofibromatosis, with a prevalence of less than one in one million (Legendre et al., 2011).In fact, neurofibromatosis is now recognized not to be one, but at least two distinct disorders: neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF-1) and neurofibromatosis type 2 (NF-2) (Ferner, 2007).Each of these two syndromes has its own diagnostic criteria that are very different; and whereas the characteristic lesion in NF-1 is the neurofibroma, the characteristic lesion in NF-2 is a peripheral nerve Schwannoma or neurolemoma (Pearce, 2003;Ferner, 2007;Lu-Emerson and Plotkin, 2009a;Lu-Emerson and Plotkin, 2009b).Neurofibromatosis has been further subcategorized beyond just neurofibromatosis types 1 and 2, into milder and more severe forms of NF-2 (Gardner syndrome and Wishart or Lee-Abbott Syndrome, respectively); segmental NF-1 and NF-2; and other variants of NF, including mixed NF.All forms of the disease appear to be autosomal dominant, though they are phenotypically highly variable, in terms of the presenting features and syndrome severity, even within a given family and when comparing monozygotic twins, suggesting the involvement of other disease-modifying genes and/or additional non-hereditary influences like second hit somatic events, environmental agents, epigenetic modification, and post-zygotic mutations (Rieley et al., 2011).This makes it difficult to advise parents regarding the risk to their future offspring, because a parent with very mild disease may have a child with severe involvement, or vice versa. Neurofibromatosis type 1Neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF-1) is the most common form of disease, affecting one in roughly 2500 to 5000 live births (Evans et al., 2010;Ferner et al., 2007;Legendre et al., 2011).This renders it more than ten times more common than NF-2(Evans et al., 2010;Ferner et al., 2007).Though autosomal dominant, up to 50% of cases arise spontaneously from a gene mutation that occurs on chromosome 17q11.2,which encodes for a large protein called neurofibromin (Evans et al., 2010;Legendre et al., 2011).This NF-1 gene is a classical tumour suppressor gene, with tumour growth requiring the loss of BOTH alleles.Neurofibromatosis type 1 has a classical combination of clinical signs (Ferner, 2010), for which the mnemonic CHANSOR has been used.These signs include Café au lait macules; Hamartomas of the iris (called Lisch nodules); Axillary and Inguinal Freckling; www.intechopen.com

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInTech eBooksSame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207