Intracranial Presentation of Systemic Hodgkin's Disease
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intracranial involvement by Hodgkin's disease is rare. We report a patient with Hodgkin's disease who had intracranial disease at presentation. We also review the literature pertaining to intracranial Hodgkin's disease. Using the key words "Hodgkin's disease" and "central nervous system (CNS) disease", we searched the Pubmed and Cancerlit databases. References were systematically reviewed and data regarding the following variables was extracted: age, gender, signs and symptoms at presentation, histology of Hodgkin's disease, cerebrospinal fluid analysis, stage and treatment. Only 36 cases of intracranial Hodgkin's disease were identified in the literature. Intracranial Hodgkin's disease at presentation is even more uncommon with only 8 reported cases. Most cases of intracranial involvement by Hodgkin's disease occur at the time of relapse. The most common presenting feature of intracranial Hodgkin's disease is a cranial nerve palsy with brain parenchyma being the most common intracranial site of involvement. Mixed cellularity histology is the most frequent subtype of Hodgkin's disease among these patients and the median survival following intracranial presentation is 46 months. Treatment has varied extensively but includes whole brain radiation with or without combination chemotherapy. Our literature review suggests that the prognosis is not dismal with appropriate treatment.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it