MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2424472415 · doi:10.1093/neuonc/now083.09

RA-10SUBTLE FINDINGS ON SPINAL MRIs IN CHILDREN NEWLY DIAGNOSED WITH MEDULLOBLASTOMA

2016· article· en· W2424472415 on OpenAlexaff
Julie Bennett, Ramy Ashwamy, Vijay Ramaswamy, Derek Stephens, Éric Bouffet, Manohar Shroff, Ute Bartels

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedulloblastomaMedicineRadiologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Medulloblastoma (MB) consist of at least 4 molecular distinct subgroups. While molecular characteristics will influence future treatment strategies, currently children diagnosed with MB and evidence of spinal metastatic disease on initial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are treated with an increased dose of craniospinal radiation (CSI). This study reviewed subtle abnormal findings on spinal MRI at the time of diagnosis to elucidate its prognostic significance. METHODS: Children (≥3 years) with MB, consecutively diagnosed and treated at SickKids between January 1988 to December 2012, were identified. Initial staging MRIs of the spine were re-reviewed by 2 independent investigators blinded to patient outcome. The presence of nerve root clumping, linear vascular enhancement, nerve root enhancement and/or other vague findings was labeled as subtle findings. RESULTS: One hundred of 157 patients were eligible for final analysis. Subtle findings were identified in 48 (48%) patients. Of those 48 patients, 45 patients had their diagnostic spinal MRI preoperatively. Analysis by subgroup identified a higher proportion of subtle findings in the SHH subgroup with even distribution of normal versus subtle findings in all others. OS in children with subtle findings compared to those without any abnormal findings was not different, 84% vs. 81% respectively, while OS in M3 patients was significantly worse at 53%, p = 0.04. CONCLUSIONS: A higher proportion of subtle findings was identified in the SHH subgroup. In this institutional retrospective review subtle findings are common, not associated with decreased OS and hence should not prompt an increased dose of CSI.

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)0.003
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuro-OncologySame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207