MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113022073 · doi:10.3389/fendo.2011.00081

Long Term Sequelae of Pediatric Craniopharyngioma ? Literature Review and 20 Years of Experience

2011· article· en· W2113022073 on OpenAlexaff
Michal Cohen, Sharon Guger, Jill Hamilton

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Endocrinology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPituitary Gland Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCraniopharyngiomaMedicineNeurocognitiveComplicationPediatricsQuality of life (healthcare)PopulationSurgeryPsychiatryCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Craniopharyngioma are rare histologically benign brain tumors that develop in the pituitary-hypothalamic area. They may invade nearby anatomical structures causing significant rates of neurological, neurocognitive, and endocrinological complications including remarkable hypothalamic damage. Information regarding long term implications of the tumors and treatment in the pediatric population is accumulating, and treatment goals appear to be changing accordingly. In this review we aim to present data regarding long term complications of craniopharyngioma in children and adolescents and our experience from a large tertiary center. Hypothalamic dysfunction was noted to be the most significant complication, adversely affecting quality of life in survivors. Obesity, fatigue, and sleep disorders are the most notable manifestations of this dysfunction, and treatment is extremely difficult. Changes in management in recent years show a potential for improved long term outcomes; we found a trend toward less aggressive surgical management and increasing use of adjuvant treatment, accompanied by a decrease in complication rates.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations72
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in EndocrinologySame topicPituitary Gland Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207