MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081748401 · doi:10.3171/2009.10.focus09218

Genomics of medulloblastoma: from Giemsa-banding to next-generation sequencing in 20 years

2009· review· en· W2081748401 on OpenAlexaff
Paul A. Northcott, James T. Rutka, Michael D. Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurosurgical FOCUS · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedulloblastomaGenomicsBiologyComputational biologyDNA methylationGenomeDNA sequencingBioinformaticsGeneticsGeneGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Advances in the field of genomics have recently enabled the unprecedented characterization of the cancer genome, providing novel insight into the molecular mechanisms underlying malignancies in humans. The application of high-resolution microarray platforms to the study of medulloblastoma has revealed new oncogenes and tumor suppressors and has implicated changes in DNA copy number, gene expression, and methylation state in its etiology. Additionally, the integration of medulloblastoma genomics with patient clinical data has confirmed molecular markers of prognostic significance and highlighted the potential utility of molecular disease stratification. The advent of next-generation sequencing technologies promises to greatly transform our understanding of medulloblastoma pathogenesis in the next few years, permitting comprehensive analyses of all aspects of the genome and increasing the likelihood that genomic medicine will become part of the routine diagnosis and treatment of medulloblastoma.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations55
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurosurgical FOCUSSame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207