MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2619858742 · doi:10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-17-0515

Pediatric Cancer Predisposition Imaging: Focus on Whole-Body MRI

2017· review· en· W2619858742 on OpenAlexaff
Mary‐Louise C. Greer, Stephan D. Voss, Lisa J. States

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Cancer Research · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Therapy and Dosimetry
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMagnetic resonance imagingModalitiesPediatric cancerMedical physicsCancerChildhood cancerRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The American Association for Cancer Research convened a meeting of international pediatric oncologists, geneticists, genetic counselors, and radiologists expert in childhood cancer predisposition syndromes (CPS) in October 2016 to propose consensus surveillance guidelines. Imaging plays a central role in surveillance for most, though not all, syndromes discussed. While encompassing the full gamut of modalities, there is increasing emphasis on use of nonionizing radiation imaging options such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in children and adolescents, especially in the pediatric CPS population. In view of rapid evolution and widespread adoption of whole-body MRI (WBMRI), the purpose of our review is to address WBMRI in detail. We discuss its place in the surveillance of a range of pediatric CPS, the technical and logistical aspects of acquiring and interpreting these studies, and the inherent limitations of WBMRI. We also address issues associated with sedation and use of gadolinium-based contrast agents in MRI in children.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.462
GPT teacher head0.645
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations90
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Cancer ResearchSame topicRadiation Therapy and DosimetryFrench-language works237,207