MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990412304 · doi:10.1097/mop.0b013e3282f45ba4

Langerhans cell histiocytosis: update for the pediatrician

2008· review· en· W1990412304 on OpenAlexaff
Sheila Weitzman, R. Maarten Egeler

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Pediatrics · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHistiocytic Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLangerhans cell histiocytosisMedicineDiseaseHistiocytosisEtiologyHistiocyteIntensive care medicinePediatricsPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Langerhans cell histiocytosis is the commonest of the histiocytic disorders. Owing to the relative rarity of the condition, it remains a disease in which the diagnosis is often delayed or missed and in which many questions remain unanswered, ranging from etiology and pathogenesis to therapy. The management is often frustrating for care-givers and parents/patients. The purpose of the review is therefore to raise awareness of the disease and to highlight the clinical findings that should make the pediatrician or primary care-giver suspect the diagnosis, as well as current thinking regarding management of the various and diverse manifestations of this disease. RECENT FINDINGS: We discuss new and interesting insights into the biology of Langerhans cell histiocytosis that raise the possibility of future targeted therapy. Important points in the diagnosis, investigation and management of the various forms of the disease are also discussed. SUMMARY: We present a review of childhood Langerhans cell histiocytosis, highlighting new insights into pathogenesis and management of the various forms of this complex disease.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.285 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations146
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in PediatricsSame topicHistiocytic Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207