Survey of treatment recommendations for anaplastic oligodendroglioma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anaplastic oligodendroglioma is a malignant brain tumor uniquely sensitive to treatment with both chemotherapy and radiotherapy. There are few prospective clinical trials for newly diagnosed patients and multiple approaches to the treatment of these patients. This study explored the recommended treatment offered by experts in neuro-oncology. A Web-based survey was developed and distributed to 800 members of the Society of Neuro-Oncology (SNO) who had an e-mail address listed with SNO. Questions addressed use of molecular genetic information and treatment recommendations. A total of 99 clinical SNO members (20%) responded. The majority reported practicing at an academic center in the United States. Two-thirds of respondents see more than five patients with newly diagnosed anaplastic oligodendroglioma annually. Molecular genetic testing was requested for more than 75% of patients, and the results significantly influenced treatment recommendations (p = 0.000003). Regardless of molecular genetic status, the most commonly recommended treatment was the use of concurrent temozolomide and radiotherapy followed by adjuvant temozolomide (18%-34%). The current survey demonstrates that although neuro-oncologists have embraced the use of molecular genetic studies in newly diagnosed anaplastic oligodendroglioma, treatment recommendations vary widely and are often independent of the molecular data.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".