MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049700780 · doi:10.1586/14737175.4.5.879

Advances in the treatment of pediatric brain tumors

2004· review· en· W2049700780 on OpenAlexaff
James T. Rutka, John S. Kuo, M Carter, Amit Ray, Shigeo Ueda, Todd G. Mainprize

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Neurotherapeutics · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHedgehog Signaling Pathway Studies
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNeuropathologyNeurosurgeryNeurologyBrain tumorAtypical teratoid rhabdoid tumorNeuroradiologyGliomaOncologyRadiation oncologyMedical physicsRadiation therapyInternal medicinePathologyMedulloblastomaRadiologyCancer researchDiseasePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Brain tumors are a heterogeneous group of neoplasms with different origins, pathobiologies, treatments and prognoses. The collective contributions from the fields of neuro-oncology, neurosurgery, radiation oncology, neurology, neuropathology, neuroradiology and molecular biology have all led to significant advances in the treatment of certain brain tumors. Ideas from these fields, under the cooperative umbrella of clinical cancer trial consortia, have been tested in large-scale studies. As a result, patient survivals have increased markedly for these tumor types. Unfortunately, there are certain brain tumors in childhood, such as the diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma and atypical teratoid rhabdoid tumor, for which survival advantages have not been found. This review will discuss the current and possible future therapies of the most common pediatric brain tumors and highlight some of the novel imaging modalities that are used pre- and intraoperatively.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.341 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations21
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of NeurotherapeuticsSame topicHedgehog Signaling Pathway StudiesFrench-language works237,207