MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2782612958 · doi:10.1002/jnr.24213

Retinoblastoma, the visible CNS tumor: A review

2018· review· en· W2782612958 on OpenAlexafffund
Helen Dimaras, Timothy W. Corson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience Research · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Oncology and Treatments
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesHospital for Sick ChildrenPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Eye InstituteNational Institutes of HealthCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchBrandan’s Eye Research FoundationSt. Baldrick's FoundationResearch to Prevent Blindness
KeywordsRetinoblastomaMagnetic resonance imagingMedicineNeuroblastomaCancerNeurosciencePathologyRadiologyBiologyGeneInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The pediatric ocular cancer retinoblastoma is the only central nervous system (CNS) tumor readily observed without specialized equipment: it can be seen by, and in, the naked eye. This accessibility enables unique imaging modalities. Here, we review this cancer for a neuroscience audience, highlighting these clinical and research imaging options, including fundus imaging, optical coherence tomography, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging. We also discuss the subtype of retinoblastoma driven by the MYCN oncogene more commonly associated with neuroblastoma, and consider trilateral retinoblastoma, in which an intracranial tumor arises along with ocular tumors in patients with germline RB1 gene mutations. Retinoblastoma research and clinical care can offer insights applicable to CNS malignancies, and also benefit from approaches developed elsewhere in the CNS.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.286
GPT teacher head0.542
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations177
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neuroscience ResearchSame topicOcular Oncology and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207