MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2438991415 · doi:10.1093/neuonc/now070.09

EPN-10UPDATING THE PROGNOSTIC IMPORTANCE OF RESECTION STATUS AND CHROMOSOME 1q GAIN IN CHILDREN TREATED ACCORDING TO THE FIRST SIOP 1999-04 TRIAL FOR PAEDIATRIC INTRACRANIAL EPENDYMOMA

2016· article· en· W2438991415 on OpenAlexaff
John‐Paul Kilday, Rebecca Chapman, Lisa Storer, James Lowe, Thomas S. Jacques, Tim Jaspan, Donald Macarthur, Conor Mallucci, Nicky Thorp, Maura Massimino, Éric Bouffet, David W. Ellison, David Machin, Richard G. Grundy

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicParticle accelerators and beam dynamics
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpendymomaMedicineResectionPediatricsSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Robust clinical and biological correlates of outcome for childhood intracranial ependymoma are still required. Previous analysis of clinical trial cohorts suggests incomplete resection (IR) and chromosome 1q25 gain were markers of recurrence for very young, but not older patients. 89 patients were originally enrolled on the SIOP ependymoma I trial. Following central pathology review, 10 were excluded. Biological re-evaluation was performed on an expanded cohort of 71 cases by 1q25 FISH analysis. Additionally, Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) was performed on 32 cases. Results were correlated with clinical, histological and updated survival data. Of the 79 cases, complete resection (CR) was achieved at initial surgery for 35 children (44%). 10-year EFS and OS for CR cases was 52.2% (SE 8.8%) and 70.4% (SE 7.9%), and for IR was 30.2% (SE 7%) and 46.5% (SE 7.6%) respectively. Of the 71 cases, 54 (76%) generated 1q25 results. Both IR (HR 2.12, 95% CIs 1.02–4.39, p = 0.04) and 1q25 gain (HR 2.26, 95% CIs 1.04–4.89, p = 0.04) were independent predictors of tumour progression. The only independent marker of adverse OS was anaplastic histology (HR 2.34, 95% CIs 1.16–4.74, p = 0.02). FISH and MLPA data were obtained in 25 cases with result concordance in 20 (80%). 1q gain is an independent predictor of poor outcome, and in combination with IR, identifies a very high risk group. Good correlation between 1q25 FISH and MLPA is demonstrated.

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)0.002
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 topicParticle accelerators and beam dynamicsFrench-language works237,207