MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981968532 · doi:10.1002/pbc.21655

Dose intensive melphalan and cyclophosphamide with autologous hematopoietic stem cells for recurrent medulloblastoma or germinoma

2008· article· en· W1981968532 on OpenAlexaff
Richard Kadota, Donald H. Mahoney, John Doyle, Reggie Duerst, Henry S. Friedman, Emi Holmes, Larry E. Kun, Tianni Zhou, Ian F. Pollack

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Blood & Cancer · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsMedicineMelphalanMedulloblastomaCyclophosphamideGerminomaBusulfanChemotherapyOncologyHematopoietic stem cell transplantationSurgeryInternal medicineTransplantationPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To determine the response, toxicity, and survival for children with progressive or recurrent medulloblastoma and germinoma using a single myeloablative course of chemotherapy supported by autologous hematopoietic stem cells. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Subjects were in second remission or had minimal residual disease at the time of study entry. The conditioning regimen consisted of cyclophosphamide 6,000 mg/m(2) plus melphalan 180 mg/m(2). RESULTS: Twenty-nine evaluable pediatric patients were accrued. The most frequent major toxicities were myelosuppression, infections, and stomatitis, but no toxic deaths were recorded. Best responses were: CR = 6, CCR = 13, PR = 6, SD = 2, and PD = 2. There were 6 medulloblastoma and 3 germinoma survivors with a median follow-up of 7.5 years (range = 2.8-10). Two germinoma survivors received radiotherapy after autografting for presumptive progressive disease. CONCLUSION: Myeloablative chemotherapy consisting of cyclophosphamide and melphalan was tolerable in the relapsed brain tumor setting with 19/29 cases achieving CR or CCR status and 9/29 becoming long-term survivors.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.209
Threshold uncertainty score0.894

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations34
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric Blood & CancerSame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207