MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2756862815 · doi:10.1002/pbc.26784

Evaluation and treatment of Langerhans cell histiocytosis patients with central nervous system abnormalities: Current views and new vistas

2017· review· en· W2756862815 on OpenAlexaff
E. Ann Yeh, Jay Greenberg, Oussama Abla, Giulia Longoni, Eli L. Diamond, Michelle L. Hermiston, Brandon Tran, Carlos Rodríguez‐Galindo, Carl E. Allen, Kenneth L. McClain

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Blood & Cancer · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHistiocytic Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
FundersSt. Baldrick's Foundation
KeywordsMedicineLangerhans cell histiocytosisChoroid plexusCentral nervous systemCerebrumMagnetic resonance imagingPonsCerebellumPathologyBasal gangliaHistiocytosisRadiologyAnatomyDiseaseInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Central nervous system (CNS) involvement in Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH) can include mass lesions of the hypothalamic pituitary axis, choroid plexus, cerebrum, and cerebellum or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) signal abnormalities of the cerebellum, pons, and basal ganglia. The term neurodegenerative (ND) CNS-LCH has been given to the MRI signal abnormalities and neurologic dysfunction, although initially patients may have no clinical symptoms. Standardized evaluations to better understand the natural history and response to therapy are needed. We propose guidelines for clinical, radiologic, and physiologic tests as a framework for developing the best methods of evaluation, which can then be tested in prospective treatment protocols.

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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations103
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric Blood & CancerSame topicHistiocytic Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207