Management of adults with Wilms’ tumor: recommendations based on international consensus
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
Since Wilms' tumor occurs rarely in adults, there are no standard treatments available. Most adult patients will be diagnosed unexpectedly following nephrectomy for presumed renal cell carcinoma. Outcome for adults is inferior compared with children, although better results are reported when treated within pediatric trials. Multiple factors, including the unfamiliarity of adult oncologists and pathologists with Wilms' tumors, lack of standardized treatment and consequent delays in initiating the appropriate risk-adapted therapy, may contribute to the poor outcome. A standardized approach for the management of adult Wilms' tumors is proposed with the aim to limit treatment delay after surgery and encourage a uniform approach for this rare disease and thereby improve survival. These recommendations are based on discussions held with representatives of the renal tumor committees of the Society of Paediatric Oncology and Children's Oncology Group, and have been updated with a review of more recently published institutional and trial experience of adults treated on pediatric protocols. They provide a critical evaluation of the current evidence for the management of adult Wilms' tumors and propose details of how current pediatric therapeutic guidelines could be adapted for use in adults.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it