MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993713688 · doi:10.3171/ped/2008/1/5/382

Diffuse intrinsic brainstem tumors in neonates

2008· article· en· W1993713688 on OpenAlexaff
Niketa C. Shah, Amit Ray, Ute Bartels, James T. Rutka, Éric Bouffet, James A. Drake, Cynthia Hawkins, Annie Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurosurgery Pediatrics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBrainstemExpansiveMagnetic resonance imagingPathologyPresentation (obstetrics)PediatricsRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors report on 2 newborn infants with the unusual presentation of intrinsic brainstem tumors. Both nondysmorphic, full-term neonates had cranial nerve palsies and hypotonia. Diagnoses of diffuse intrinsic brainstem gliomas were made on the basis of magnetic resonance imaging, which showed large expansive, nonenhancing intrinsic pontine masses. Intrinsic pontine tumors, characteristically seen in school-age children, are most often high-grade gliomas that are almost invariably fatal. However, the microanatomy and natural history of pontine tumors in neonates are unknown. With parental consent, both newborns were treated expectantly with supportive care but died of progressive disease by 2 weeks of age. In one child, postmortem examination revealed a primary brainstem primitive neuroectodermal tumor. The authors conclude that, as in older children, neonatal intrinsic brainstem tumors may be of a highly malignant nature. The rapid tumor progression in both cases indicates that where a diagnostic procedure may pose significant risks, supportive observation can aid in distinguishing malignant from benign tumor growth.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.245
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

Citations14
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurosurgery PediatricsSame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207