MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2443911332 · doi:10.1093/neuonc/now073.53

HG-57RE-IRRADIATION IN PATIENTS WITH DIFFUSE INTRINSIC PONTINE GLIOMAS, AN UPDATE ON THE CANADIAN EXPERIENCE

2016· article· en· W2443911332 on OpenAlexaffabout
Álvaro Lassaletta, Ute Bartels, Douglas Strother, Juliette Hukin, Magimairajan Vanan, Dennis T. L. Ku, Normand Laperrière, Karen Goddard, Lucie Lafay‐Cousin, Jennifer Adamski, Michal Zápotocký, Revathi Rajagopal, Vijay Ramaswamy, Uri Tabori, Annie Huang, Tara McKeown, Éric Bouffet

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsCancerCare ManitobaBC Children's HospitalAlberta Children's HospitalPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIrradiationPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: More than 90% of the children diagnosed with DIPG will succumb within two-years of diagnosis. Clinical-trials have failed to demonstrate a survival benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy. Radiotherapy is the only effective treatment thus far but of limited duration. The aim of this study is to determine the safety and efficacy of re-irradiation. METHOD: We retrospectively reviewed demographic, clinical and radiation data of all patients with DIPG treated in Canada with re-irradiation. RESULTS: Since January 2011, 13 patients with progressive DIPG received re-irradiation. Median age at diagnosis was 5 years. Median time from diagnosis to progression was 12 months (range,4-37m). Re-irradiation total dose varied between institutions from 21.6Gy to 36Gy. Re-radiation was given focally in 85% of the patients. Re-irradiation was well tolerated by all children. Four patients had transient tiredness and decrease of appetite during treatment. One patient suffered pontine necrosis with brainstem dysfunction with 30Gy in 10 fractions. All but two showed neurological improvement. With a median follow-up from diagnosis of 19.8 months, all patients died, with a median time from re-irradiation to death of 6 months (range,5-13m). When compared to an historic cohort of 46 patients, median time from progression to death was 92 days in the non re-irradiated patients, vs. 173 days in the re-irradiated ones (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: In this limited experience re-irradiation was safe and feasible in patients with progressive DIPG, providing neurological recovery and a prolonged life span. A prospective Canadian re-irradiation protocol is in progress to evaluate treatment benefit including quality of life.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.537
Threshold uncertainty score0.920

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.244 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuro-Oncology→Same topicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→