MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081102061 · doi:10.1093/neuonc/4.4.253

Leptomeningeal dissemination in children with progressive low-gradeneuroepithelial tumors

2002· article· en· W2081102061 on OpenAlexaff
Juliette Hukin, João Siffert, Linda Velasquez, David Zagzag, Jeffrey C. Allen

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsB.C. Women's Hospital & Health CentreBC Children's HospitalChildren's & Women's Health Centre of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroepithelial cellMedicineRadiologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our purpose is to describe the incidence and clinical features of leptomeningeal dissemination (LM) in children with progressive low-grade neuroepithelial tumor (LGN). We have continuously tracked all patients with primary CNS tumors since 1986. Satisfactorily followed data were obtained on 427 of the 588 patients with localized LGN at diagnosis between 1986 and 1998, 177 (42%) of whom developed progressive or recurrent disease. LM was identified in 13/177 (7%). The median age at initial diagnosis was 5 years and at LM diagnosis was 8.5 years. The primary tumor sites were diencephalon (6), brainstem (3), cerebellum (2), cerebrum (1), and spinal cord (1). The histologies were pilocytic astrocytoma (4), ganglioglioma (4), fibrillary astrocytoma (3), mixed glioma (1), and glioneurofibroma (1). Management included chemotherapy (2) or radiotherapy (3) or both (7); 1 patient received only radical resections of symptomatic lesions. The 5-year progression-free survival rates for patients with localized versus LM disease at recurrence were 22% (95% confidence interval [CI], 13%-25%) versus 15% (95% CI, 0.1%-36%), respectively ( P = 0.28). The 5- and 10-year overall survival rates for patients with localized disease versus LM were 87% (95% CI, 82%-92%) and 83% (95% CI, 77%-89%) versus 68% (95% CI, 39%-91%) and 68% (95% CI, 39%-91%), respectively ( P = 0.05). The 7% incidence of LM is a low estimate because patients were not routinely staged at recurrence. Tumors arising from the diencephalon appeared to predispose to LM; no other predisposing features were identified. We strongly urge that for optimum treatment planning all patients with recurrent LGN be staged with an enhanced spine and brain MRI before adjuvant therapy is initiated. The good survival of patients with LGN and LM reflects a more indolent disease than malignant CNS tumors with LM.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.565

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations53
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuro-OncologySame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207