High-Risk Neuroblastoma in Ontario: A Report of Experience From 1989 to 1995
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We did a population-based study of children with high-risk neuroblastoma to determine their survival and look for factors that had an impact on survival. METHODS: We carried out a retrospective cohort study of patients diagnosed in Ontario from 1989 to 1995. 162 cases of neuroblastoma were diagnosed in the province with 70 (43%) considered high-risk: all were older than one year of age, with 15 patients classified as International Neuroblastoma Staging System (INSS) stage 3, and 55 INSS stage 4. RESULTS: Stage 3 patients did significantly better than Stage 4 patients with a 5-year overall survival of 67.7% and 22.7% respectively (P = 0.015). In stage 4 patients achieving at least a partial response to up-front therapy and surviving for at least 9.5 months after diagnosis (the median time to transplant), there was no difference in survival between the 19 transplant patients and the 17 treated with chemotherapy alone (P = 0.75). However, patients transplanted by peripheral stem cell (PSC) collection did significantly better than both the bone marrow transplantation (P = 0.002) and chemotherapy-alone group (P = 0.047). There was a significant difference in up-front chemotherapy and use of radiation in the three groups (P < 0.001 and P = 0.01 respectively), but no difference in the incidence of bone and bone marrow metastases, MYCN amplification or unfavorable histology. CONCLUSIONS: In this nonrandomized study, we found that stage 4 neuroblastoma patients alive more than 9.5 months after diagnosis, with at least a partial response to initial therapy, did significantly better with PSC transplant compared with bone marrow transplantation or chemotherapy alone.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".