Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims To compare high-risk histopathology of eyes with primary versus secondary enucleation from patients with retinoblastoma. Patients and methods A retrospective histopathology review identified 207 eyes enucleated from 202 patients between March 1997 and August 2013. Our review considered high-risk histopathological features to include extraocular disease or invasion of the anterior chamber, iris, ciliary body, choroid (massive), postlaminar optic nerve or sclera. Results Most eyes (144, 70%) were primarily enucleated; 63 (30%) were secondarily enucleated after neoadjuvant therapy. The primary enucleation group had more advanced disease (Reese-Ellsworth group V: 95% vs 59%; International Classification Group D/E: 97% vs 59%; p<0.001). The incidence of high-risk histopathology features was similar between groups (32% vs 21%, n=59; p=0.132). The type of prior therapy was not associated with high-risk histopathology features. Time to enucleation was longer for secondarily enucleated eyes with high-risk features. Choroid and postlaminar optic nerve invasion were more frequent in eyes primarily enucleated (p<0.001). Forty-six of the 59 (78%) patients with high-risk features received adjuvant chemotherapy and/or external beam radiation therapy. Three patients who received primary enucleation and adjuvant therapy died of metastatic recurrence. Conclusions Despite the more favourable classification of eyes treated with neoadjuvant therapy, the risk of high-risk histopathology features at enucleation was comparable with eyes undergoing primary enucleation. Delayed enucleation was associated with these features, and the majority of patients required further adjuvant therapy. Caution must be exercised in treating recalcitrant intraocular retinoblastoma to promptly pursue definitive enucleation in an effort to minimise further treatment exposures and metastases.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".