Cranial nerve palsies in childhood parameningeal rhabdomyosarcoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Children with parameningeal rhabdomyosarcoma (PM RMS) and cranial nerve palsy (CNP) are at risk for permanent neurologic dysfunction. Clinicians often consider the use of emergent therapies such as expedited radiation and/or corticosteroids; however, there is a paucity of information describing the natural history of CNP in PM RMS. We sought to describe the clinical features of patients with PM RMS plus associated CNP and to evaluate the patient, disease, and treatment-related factors that impacted neurologic recovery. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of PM RMS cases treated at the Hospital for Sick Children between 1985 and 2010. RESULTS: Thirty-five children were treated for PM RMS, 19 (54%) of whom presented with CNP. Children with CNP were nine times more likely to have other high-risk features (cranial base bony erosion and/or intracranial extension) at the time of presentation than children without CNP (OR 9.6, 95% CI 1.69, 54.79, P = 0.013). In addition to commencing chemotherapy, 13 patients (68%) received expedited RT and corticosteroids, four (21%) corticosteroids alone, and two (11%) received only standard chemotherapy and RT. At last follow up of the 11 survivors, neurologic recovery was complete in five (45%), partial in five (45%), and absent in one (9%). CONCLUSIONS: In our cohort, recovery of PM RMS associated CNP was often incomplete despite multi-modal therapy. A larger cohort of patients is required to determine the utility of emergent initiation of radiation or corticosteroids. This study will facilitate the counseling of future families on the long-term neurologic recovery CNP in PM RMS.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".