Impact of location on outcome in children with low‐grade oligodendroglioma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Childhood low-grade oligodendroglioma (WHO grade II) are rare. No controlled pediatric study has been published, to generate high level evidence for the best treatment. Therefore, we retrospectively analyzed data available from pediatric patients. PROCEDURE: We pooled data from two prospective German multicentre studies (HIT-DOK and HIT-LGG). Eligibility criteria were: (1) primary neoplasm, (2) histology of pure oligodendroglioma WHO grade II, (3) intracranial location, (4) age <18 years, (5) date of diagnosis: 1990-2002, (6) observation time >6 months. The outcome was analyzed by using the SPSS-software. RESULTS: Nineteen boys and 13 girls were eligible (median age 10.3 years). The tumor locations included: 26 peripheral tumors (23 cerebral hemisphere, 3 cerebellum), and 6 central tumors (4 thalamus, 1 frontal mesencephalon, 1 basal ganglia). Resections were classified as complete in 18 (14 cerebral hemispheres, 3 cerebellum, 1 thalamus) and less than complete in 14 patients (3 subtotal resections, 8 partial resections, 3 biopsy). The 5-year event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) rates of all patients were 81.3 and 84.4%, respectively (median observation time 3.8 years). All of the 26 children with peripheral tumors were alive with no tumor progression, but five of six patients with central tumors died of disease (median time to death 1.6 years). This survival difference was statistically significant for EFS (P < 0.0001) and OS (P < 0.0001). The difference between completely resected versus incompletely resected tumors was far less striking (P > 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: The outcome of children with centrally located low-grade oligodendroglioma is particularly poor, while tumors of the cerebral hemispheres and cerebellum carry an excellent prognosis, even with minor tumor resection.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".