MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129697031 · doi:10.1158/1055-9965.epi-14-0207

Childhood Brain Tumor Epidemiology: A Brain Tumor Epidemiology Consortium Review

2014· review· en· W2129697031 on OpenAlexaff
Kimberly Johnson, Jennifer Cullen, Jill S. Barnholtz‐Sloan, Quinn T. Ostrom, Chelsea E. Langer, Michelle C. Turner, Roberta McKean‐Cowdin, James L. Fisher, Philip J. Lupo, Sonia Partap, Judith Schwartzbaum, Michael E. Scheurer

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Population and Public Health
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsEpidemiologyBrain tumorMedicineChildhood cancerIncidence (geometry)Brain cancerCancerPathologyOncologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Childhood brain tumors are the most common pediatric solid tumor and include several histologic subtypes. Although progress has been made in improving survival rates for some subtypes, understanding of risk factors for childhood brain tumors remains limited to a few genetic syndromes and ionizing radiation to the head and neck. In this report, we review descriptive and analytical epidemiology childhood brain tumor studies from the past decade and highlight priority areas for future epidemiology investigations and methodological work that is needed to advance our understanding of childhood brain tumor causes. Specifically, we summarize the results of a review of studies published since 2004 that have analyzed incidence and survival in different international regions and that have examined potential genetic, immune system, developmental and birth characteristics, and environmental risk factors. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 23(12); 2716-36. ©2014 AACR.

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)0.003
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.009
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.337 · 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

Citations393
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & PreventionSame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207