Treatment of paediatric pontine glioma with oral trophosphamide and etoposide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To evaluate the overall survival of paediatric patients with pontine gliomas treated with oral trophosphamide and etoposide. Patients between 3 and 17 years of age with either typical diffuse pontine glioma on MRI or histologically proven anaplastic astrocytoma/glioblastoma multiforme located in the pons, were eligible. Treatment consisted of oral trophosphamide 100 mg x m(-2) x day(-1) combined with oral etoposide at 25 mg x m(-2) x day(-1) starting simultaneously with conventional radiation. Twenty patients were enrolled (median age 6 years, male : female=9 : 11). Surgical procedures included: no surgery: five, open biopsy: three, stereotactic biopsy: six, partial resection: three, and sub-total resection: three. Histological diagnoses included pilocytic astrocytoma: one, astrocytoma with no other specification: three, anaplastic astrocytoma: three, glioblastoma multiforme: eight, no histology: five. The most frequent side effects were haematologic and gastrointestinal. There was no toxic death. The response to combined treatment in 12 evaluable patients was: complete response: 0, partial response: three, stable disease: four, and progressive disease: five. All tumours progressed locally and all patients died. The overall median survival was 8 months. The overall survival rates at 1 and 4 years were: 0.4 and 0.05 respectively. This was not different from a control group of patients documented in the same population. Oral trophosphamide in combination with etoposide did not improve survival of pontine glioma patients. The treatment was well tolerated and should be evaluated for more chemoresponsive paediatric malignancies.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".