MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001078770 · doi:10.1177/0883073808325650

Diffuse Pontine Glioma in Jordan and Impact of Up-front Prognosis Disclosure With Parents and Families

2008· article· en· W2001078770 on OpenAlexaff
Ibrahim Qaddoumi, Najeeb Ezam, Maisa Swaidan, Imad Jaradat, Asem Mansour, Najyah Abuirmeileh, Éric Bouffet, Maysa Al‐Hussaini

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Child Neurology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGliomaMedicineDo not resuscitateBrain deadPediatricsDo Not Resuscitate OrderIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For patients with diffuse pontine glioma, our institution offers local radiotherapy and supportive care only. The prognosis and do-not-resuscitate orders are discussed upfront with patients' parents. To investigate the effectiveness of this policy, we retrospectively reviewed records of patients with diffuse pontine glioma treated at the institution over a 49-month period. This study included 19 children (16 girls and 3 boys). The median age at diagnosis was 7 years. One patient remained alive at the end of the study, 2 were lost to follow-up, and 16 were confirmed dead. The median survival was 8.2 months. Do-not-resuscitate discussion was documented for 14 patients and successfully initiated for 11. None of those confirmed dead had been offered life support. Contrary to the common belief, our study showed that do not resuscitate should be addressed in Muslim patients with high-risk malignancies. We also found that diffuse pontine glioma warrants further study in developing countries.

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)0.007
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations12
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Child NeurologySame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207