MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Current Treatment Approaches for Infants with Malignant Central Nervous System Tumors

2009· review· en· W2152531047 on OpenAlexaff
Lucie Lafay‐Cousin, Douglas Strother

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Oncologist · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicChromatin Remodeling and Cancer
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNeurocognitiveMedulloblastomaEpendymomaChoroid plexusOncologyChemotherapyBrain tumorCentral nervous systemGliomaRadiation therapyInternal medicinePathologyCognitionCancer researchPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The management of brain tumors in very young children remains a challenge for neuro-oncologists in large part because of the greater vulnerability of the developing brain to treatment-related toxicity. Nearly three decades of infant brain tumor clinical trials have led to significant progress in the delineation of prognostic factors and improvements in outcome. Innovative strategies that employ high-dose chemotherapy, intrathecal chemotherapy, modified focal irradiation, or combinations of these have been used to delay or avoid the use of conventional craniospinal irradiation in order to minimize the risk for deleterious neurocognitive impairment in survivors. However, it is difficult to evaluate the impact of such approaches on intellectual and functional outcome, and results to date are limited. This review covers the most recent therapeutic advances for the most common histological subtypes of malignant infant brain tumors: medulloblastoma, supratentorial primitive neuroectodermal tumor, ependymoma, atypical teratoid rhabdoid tumor, choroid plexus carcinoma, and high-grade glioma. Survival and neurocognitive outcome are emphasized.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 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

Citations59
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe OncologistSame topicChromatin Remodeling and CancerFrench-language works237,207