MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1942082802 · doi:10.1002/pbc.24658

Outcome of patients with stage II/favorable histology wilms tumor with and without local tumor spill: A report from the National Wilms Tumor Study Group

2013· article· en· W1942082802 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel M. Green, Norman E. Breslow, Giulio J. D’Angio, Marcio H. Malogolowkin, Michael L. Ritchey, Audrey E. Evans, J. Bruce Beckwith, Elizabeth J. Perlman, Robert C. Shamberger, Susan M. Peterson, Paul E. Grundy, Jeffrey S. Dome, Patrick R. Thomas, John A. Kalapurakal

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Blood & Cancer · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRenal and related cancers
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health Services
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsWilms' tumorMedicineStage (stratigraphy)HistologyTumor stageWilms tumourRenal tumorOncologyInternal medicineCancerKidneyNephrectomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Intra-operative tumor spill increases the risk of local recurrence of Wilms tumor, and adversely impacts relapse-free (RFS) and overall survival (OS) rates. METHODS: Surgical checklists, operative notes, institutional pathology reports, central pathology review and flow sheets of 602 patients registered between August 1986 and September 1994 on National Wilms Tumor Study-4 as randomized, followed or switched and coded as Final Stage II, favorable histology (FH) were reviewed. RFS and OS were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated using the Cox model and tested for statistical significance by the log-rank test. RESULTS: Four hundred ninety-nine patients were found after review to have Stage II, FH Wilms tumor. The 8-year RFS percentages were 85.0% (95% confidence interval (CI): 81.1%, 88.1%) for those with no spill compared to 75.7% (65.8%, 83.2%) for those with spill. The 8-year OS percentages were 95.6% (93.1%, 97.3%) for those with no spill compared to 90.3% (82.2%, 94.9%) for those with spill. The HR for relapse among those with spill was 1.55 ((95%CI: 0.97,2.51), P = 0.067) and the HR for death was 1.94 ((0.92,4.09), P = 0.077). CONCLUSIONS: RFS and OS were lower for patients who had intra-operative tumor spill. The majority of NWTS Stage II, FH patients with intra-operative tumor spill have an overall excellent outcome when treated with two drug chemotherapy (vincristine and actinomycin D) and no abdominal irradiation.

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)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations52
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric Blood & CancerSame topicRenal and related cancersFrench-language works237,207