MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147818127 · doi:10.1093/neuonc/nou154

Brain Malignancy Steering Committee clinical trials planning workshop: Report from the Targeted Therapies Working Group

2014· review· en· W2147818127 on OpenAlexaff
Brian M. Alexander, E. Galanis, W. K. A. Yung, Karla V. Ballman, James M. Boyett, T. F. Cloughesy, John DeGroot, J. T. Huse, Bhupinder Mann, W. P. Mason, I. Mellinghoff, T. Mikkelsen, Paul S. Mischel, Brian Patrick O’Neill, M. D. Prados, Jann N. Sarkaria, Abdul Tawab-Amiri, Lorenzo Trippa, X. Ye, K. L. Ligon, Donald A. Berry, P. Y. Wen

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Cancer InstituteAccelerate Brain Cancer Cure
KeywordsClinical trialMedicineMalignancySteering committeeOncologyInternal medicineIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Glioblastoma is the most common primary brain malignancy and is associated with poor prognosis despite aggressive local and systemic therapy, which is related to a paucity of viable treatment options in both the newly diagnosed and recurrent settings. Even so, the rapidly increasing number of targeted therapies being evaluated in oncology clinical trials offers hope for the future. Given the broad range of possibilities for future trials, the Brain Malignancy Steering Committee convened a clinical trials planning meeting that was held at the Udvar-Hazy Center in Chantilly, Virginia, on September 19 and 20, 2013. This manuscript reports the deliberations leading up to the event from the Targeted Therapies Working Group and the results of the meeting.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.950
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.240
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations32
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuro-OncologySame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207