MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2758873854 · doi:10.1111/nan.12443

<scp>CNS</scp> embryonal tumours: <scp>WHO</scp> 2016 and beyond

2017· review· en· W2758873854 on OpenAlex
Jessica C. Pickles, Cynthia Hawkins, Torsten Pietsch, Thomas S. Jacques

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuropathology and Applied Neurobiology · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersMedical Research CouncilGreat Ormond Street Hospital for ChildrenBrain Tumour CharityCHILDREN with CANCER UKNational Institute on Handicapped Research
KeywordsCentral nervous systemMedicineBioinformaticsPathologyBiologyOncologyNeuroscienceInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Embryonal tumours of the central nervous system (CNS) present a significant clinical challenge. Many of these neoplasms affect young children, have a very high mortality and therapeutic strategies are often aggressive with poor long-term outcomes. There is a great need to accurately diagnose embryonal tumours, predict their outcome and adapt therapy to the individual patient's risk. For the first time in 2016, the WHO classification took into account molecular characteristics for the diagnosis of CNS tumours. This integration of histological features with genetic information has significantly changed the diagnostic work-up and reporting of tumours of the CNS. However, this remains challenging in embryonal tumours due to their previously unaccounted tumour heterogeneity. We describe the recent revisions made to the 4th edition of the WHO classification of CNS tumours and review the main changes, while highlighting some of the more common diagnostic testing strategies.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.907
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.269 · 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