Innovations in the management of Wilms’ tumor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advances in the management of Wilms' tumor have been dramatic over the past half century, not in small part due to the institution of multimodal therapy and the formation of collaborative study groups. While different opinions exist in the management of Wilms' tumors depending on where one lives and practices, survival rates have surpassed 90% across the board in Western societies. With more children surviving into adulthood, the concerns about morbidity have reached the forefront and now represent as much a consideration as oncologic outcomes these days. Innovations in treatment are on the horizon in the form of potential tumor markers, molecular biological means of testing for chemotherapeutic responsiveness, and advances in the delivery of chemotherapy for recurrent or recalcitrant tumors. Other technological innovations are being applied to childhood renal tumors, such as minimally invasive and nephron-sparing approaches. Risk stratification also allows for children to forego potentially unnecessary treatments and their associated morbidities. Wilms' tumor stands as a great example of the gains that can be made through protocol-driven therapy with strenuous outcomes analyses. These gains continue to spark interest in minimization of morbidity, while avoiding any compromise in oncologic efficacy. While excitement and innovation are important in the advancement of treatment delivery, we must continue to temper this enthusiasm and carefully evaluate options in order to continue to provide the highest standard of care in the management of this now highly curable disease.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".