Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current therapies for medulloblastoma were introduced primarily in the 1980s and consist of predominantly cytotoxic, nontargeted approaches. Mortality from medulloblastoma remains significant. In addition, many survivors suffer from severe treatment-related effects of radiation and cytotoxic chemotherapy. Further intensification of nonspecific therapy is unlikely to offer additional benefits, because survival rates have reached a plateau. Recent publications in medulloblastoma have revolved largely around the recognition that medulloblastoma per se does not exist, but rather, that there are a group of histologically similar but clinically and molecularly distinct entities that have been grouped under that rubric. Distinguishing the four molecular subgroups of medulloblastoma-wingless (WNT), sonic hedgehog (SHH), group 3, and group 4-in the daily treatment of patients, as well in the setting of clinical trials, is an important challenge in the near term for the pediatric neuro-oncology community. The preponderance of morbidity in treating patients with medulloblastoma is secondary to the treatment or prophylaxis of leptomeningeal metastases, and the cause of most deaths is leptomeningeal metastases. Recurrence of medulloblastoma is a nearly universally fatal event, with no significant salvage rate. The extent of spatial and temporal intratumoral heterogeneity as medulloblastoma metastasizes to leptomeninges and as it evolves in the face of radiation and cytotoxic chemotherapy is just beginning to be understood as a major barrier to therapeutic success. Pediatric neuro-oncology clinicians and scientists must now determine how best to incorporate rapid changes in our biologic understanding of medulloblastoma into the next generation of upfront clinical trials, with the goal of both improving survival for the highest-risk patients and improving quality of life for survivors.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".