MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2340257747 · doi:10.1093/neuonc/nov223.14

NCO-14PRE-TREATMENT HIPPOCAMPAL VOLUME PREDICTS NEUROCOGNITIVE FUNCTION (NCF) FOR PATIENTS TREATED WITH HIPPOCAMPAL AVOIDANCE WHOLE BRAIN RADIOTHERAPY (HA-WBRT) FOR BRAIN METASTASES: SECONDARY ANALYSIS OF NRG ONCOLOGY/RTOG 0933

2015· article· en· W2340257747 on OpenAlexaff
Clifford G. Robinson, Stephanie L. Pugh, Joseph Bovi, Vinai Gondi, Minesh P. Mehta, Tammie L.S. Benzinger, Christopher G. Owen, Simon S. Lo, Vijayananda Kundapur, Paul D. Brown, A. Sun, Steven Howard, Albert S. DeNittis, Lisa A. Kachnic

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBrain Metastases and Treatment
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineNuclear medicineRadiation therapyNeurocognitiveCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: RTOG 0933 demonstrated reduced risk of NCF decline in patients with brain metastases treated with HA-WBRT versus historical controls treated with standard WBRT. Hippocampal volume (HV) derived from high resolution MRI (HR-MRI) is an established predictor of NCF in Alzheimer's disease. We assessed associations of HV with NCF of patients enrolled on RTOG 0933. METHODS: HV (-Left, -Right, -Total) was calculated from (1) the submitted treatment structure file and (2) independent processing of baseline HR-MRI with validated software (FreeSurfer, FS). HV was correlated with baseline and 4 month NCF scores (Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised (HVLT-R) Total Recall (TR), Immediate Recognition (IR), and Delayed Recall (DR)) using Pearson correlation. Comparisons between deteriorated and non-deteriorated patients were made using Wilcoxon. RESULTS: 39 of the 42 evaluable patients for the RTOG 0933 primary endpoint had hippocampal contours. All 42 had HR-MRIs, but only 21 were processable by FS due to scan quality. HVs from FS were larger than plan contours (median HV-Total 7.2 vs. 5.5 cc), though were significantly correlated (ρ = 0.68, p = 0.001). Larger FS HV-Total and HV-Right were significantly correlated with improved baseline HVLT-R TR (ρ = 0.46/p = 0.04, ρ = 0.51/p = 0.02, respectively) and DR (ρ = 0.46/p = 0.04, ρ = 0.49/p = 0.03, respectively) but not IR. Plan contour HV was not correlated with baseline HVLT-R though there was a trend for HV-Left with 4 month HVLT-R TR (ρ = 0.29/p = 0.07). There were no significant associations between HV and HVLT deterioration or change from baseline to 4 months. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline HV calculated from automatic segmentation of the hippocampus is significantly associated with baseline NCF. HV is not correlated with deterioration in NCF, though analysis is limited by few events and analyzable patients. The importance of HV will be explored further in two developing NRG trials. This project was supported by grants U10CA21661, U10CA180868, U10CA180822, U10CA37422 and UG1CA189867 from the National Cancer Institute (NCI).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuro-OncologySame topicBrain Metastases and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207