MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2277930726 · doi:10.1002/pbc.25939

Minimal Residual Disease and Childhood Leukemia: Standard of Care Recommendations From the Pediatric Oncology Group of Ontario MRD Working Group

2016· review· en· W2277930726 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Uma H. Athale, Paul Gibson, Nicole Bradley, David Malkin, Johann Hitzler

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Blood & Cancer · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenWestern UniversityMcMaster Children's HospitalLondon Health Sciences CentreMcMaster UniversityUniversity of TorontoPediatric Oncology GroupHamilton Health Sciences
FundersCancer Center, University of ColoradoChristian-Albrechts-Universität zu KielChildren's Hospital ColoradoPediatric Oncology Group of OntarioNational Cancer Research InstituteDana-Farber Cancer InstituteOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CareSt. Jude Children's Research Hospital
KeywordsMedicineMinimal residual diseasePediatric oncologyChildhood leukemiaLeukemiaDiseaseOncologyFamily medicineStandard of careInternal medicineIntensive care medicinePediatricsLymphoblastic LeukemiaCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Minimal residual disease (MRD) is an independent predictor of relapse risk in children with leukemia and is widely used for risk-adapted treatment. This article summarizes current evidence supporting the use of MRD, including clinical significance, current international clinical practice, impact statement, and recommended indications. The proposed MRD recommendations have been endorsed by the MRD Working Group of the Pediatric Oncology Group of Ontario and provide the foundation for a strategy that aims at equitable access to MRD evaluation for children with leukemia.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-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 score0.874
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.298 · 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

Citations37
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric Blood & CancerSame topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207