MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022374489 · doi:10.1002/pbc.24437

Children's Oncology Group's 2013 blueprint for research: Stem cell transplantation

2012· review· en· W2022374489 on OpenAlexaff
Stephan A. Grupp, Christopher C. Dvorak, Michael L. Nieder, John E. Levine, Donna A. Wall, Bryan Langholz, Michael A. Pulsipher

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Blood & Cancer · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCAR-T cell therapy research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaCancerCare Manitoba
FundersNational Cancer InstituteChildren’s Oncology GroupNational Institutes of HealthChildren's Hospital of PhiladelphiaAmerican Cancer Society
KeywordsMedicineOncologyHematopoietic stem cell transplantationStem cellTransplantationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The role of SCT in pediatric oncology has continued to evolve with the introduction of new therapeutic agents and immunological insights into cancer. COG has focused its efforts on the study of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in the treatment of pediatric malignancies in several major multi-institutional Phase II and Phase III studies. These studies include addressing the impact of allogenicity in ALL (ASCT0431), and establishing autologous stem cell transplant as the standard of care in neuroblastoma. Reducing transplant-associated toxicity was addressed in the ASCT0521 study, where the TNFα inhibitor etanercept was tested for the treatment of idiopathic pneumonia syndrome. Impact of cell dose was explored in the single versus tandem umbilical cord blood study CTN-0501, in close collaboration with the BMT-CTN.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.012

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 head0.182
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations14
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric Blood & CancerSame topicCAR-T cell therapy researchFrench-language works237,207