Screening Children at Risk for Retinoblastoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To provide a set of surveillance guidelines for children at risk for development of retinoblastoma. DESIGN: Consensus panel. PARTICIPANTS: Expert panel of ophthalmic oncologists, pathologists, and geneticists. METHODS: A group of members of the American Association of Ophthalmic Oncologists and Pathologists (AAOOP) with support of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) was convened. The panel included representative ophthalmic oncologists, pathologists, and geneticists from retinoblastoma referral centers located in various geographic regions who met and discussed screening approaches for retinoblastoma. A patient "at risk" was defined as a person with a family history of retinoblastoma in a parent, sibling, or first- or second-degree relative. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Screening recommendations for children at risk for retinoblastoma. RESULTS: Consensus statement from the panel: (1) Dedicated ophthalmic screening is recommended for all children at risk for retinoblastoma above the population risk. (2) Frequency of examinations is adjusted on the basis of expected risk for RB1 mutation. (3) Genetic counseling and testing clarify the risk for retinoblastoma in children with a family history of the disease. (4) Examination schedules are stratified on the basis of high-, intermediate-, and low-risk children. (5) Children at high risk for retinoblastoma require more frequent screening, which may preferentially be examinations under anesthesia. CONCLUSIONS: Risk stratification including genetic testing and counseling serves as the basis for screening of children at elevated risk for development of retinoblastoma.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".