Screening Children at Risk for Retinoblastoma
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.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it