Supratentorial ependymoma in children: To observe or to treat following gross total resection?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The standard treatment for ependymoma is surgical resection followed by postoperative irradiation to the local site. The role of radiation therapy in completely resected supratentorial ependymoma has been questioned over the past two decades. PROCEDURE: Retrospective review of the medical records of all consecutively diagnosed supratentorial ependymoma patients at Children's Hospital Los Angeles between January 1999 and December 2009. RESULTS: Ten patients (three females) were included. The median age at presentation was 5.6 years (range 1.8-15.6 years). Reviewed histology was anaplastic ependymoma in seven patients and cellular ependymoma in three patients. Gross total resection was achieved in six patients; five were observed and one received chemotherapy. In the four patients who underwent subtotal resection, one was observed, two received local irradiation and one received irradiation and chemotherapy. The median length of follow up was 43 (range 22-81) months. Four relapses were observed; two patients who underwent initial gross total resection. All patients who underwent gross total resection were alive at the time of preparation of this article. The 5-year progression-free and overall survival rates were 53 ± 19% and 86 ± 13% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Radiation therapy was avoided in five patients following gross total resection, four of whom had anaplastic histology. In some children with completely resected supratentorial ependymoma, surgery alone may be an acceptable treatment option.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".