MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994842101 · doi:10.1002/pbc.21821

Primary mediastinal B‐cell lymphoma in the pediatric patient: Can a rational approach to therapy be based on adult studies?

2008· review· en· W1994842101 on OpenAlexaff
Dina Attias, David Hodgson, Sheila Weitzman

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Blood & Cancer · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLymphomaPositron emission tomographyRadiation therapyAdverse effectRituximabOncologyChemotherapyMediastinal massBlood cancerInternal medicineCancerRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The literature on adult and pediatric primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL) was reviewed and compared. Biologically, adult PMBCL has more similarities to Hodgkin Lymphoma (HL) than diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Pediatric studies suggest that the biology is similar to that in adults. Median age of children is 14.3 years and the overall survival (OS) is reported as 78.6% and event-free survival (EFS) as 67.4%. Adverse prognostic factors included LDH >500 and mass size over 10 cm, with a trend towards better survival in younger patients. Studies in adults show better survival with intensified chemotherapy and the addition of rituximab. Data on the use of radiation therapy show improved CR rates and survival with addition of involved field radiation therapy (IFRT). Positron emission tomography (PET) with computerized tomography (CT) imaging response-assessment after two courses and at therapy-end may allow for the rational use of IFRT in pediatric/adolescent patients who are more susceptible to development of adverse late effects.

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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations15
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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