MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017572322 · doi:10.1097/ppo.0b013e31818d8178

Gliomas With 1p/19q Codeletion:a.k.a. Oligodendroglioma

2008· review· en· W2017572322 on OpenAlexaff
Gregory Cairncross, Robert B. Jenkins

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Cancer Journal · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOligodendrogliomaMedicineRadiation therapyGliomaOncologyInternal medicineTemozolomideRandomized controlled trialOligodendroglial TumorAstrocytomaCancer research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Today, treatment recommendations for patients with all types of gliomas are based on light microscopic evaluation of tumor tissue with no allowance for genetic variability. Oligodendrogliomas are treated in a uniform manner with, as yet, no unique therapeutic approach or targeted therapy for those harboring a codeletion of chromosomes 1p and 19q. Surgical resection and radiotherapy are the standards-of-care for patients with oligodendrogliomas. Surgery improves symptoms, especially headache or seizures, and radiotherapy controls tumor growth for most patients. By extrapolation from randomized trials of glioblastoma, radiotherapy likely prolongs survival. Uncertainties persist about the timing of radiotherapy in the management of patients with low-grade oligodendrogliomas, but a superior antitumor treatment has yet to emerge. That said, the recognition that oligodendrogliomas with 1p/19q loss are sensitive to current therapies and slowly growing is already influencing our management of patients with this type of glioma, spawning trials in which patients are selected by molecular signature.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.003

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations95
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Cancer JournalSame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207