MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2802985340 · doi:10.3340/jkns.2018.0044

Malignant Brain Tumours in Children : Present and Future Perspectives

2018· review· en· W2802985340 on OpenAlexaff
James T. Rutka

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Korean Neurosurgical Society · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In contrast to many of the malignant tumors that occur in the central nervous system in adults, the management, responses to therapy, and future perspectives of children with malignant lesions of the brain hold considerable promise. Within the past 5 years, remarkable progress has been made with our understanding of the basic biology of the molecular genetics of several pediatric malignant brain tumors including medulloblastoma, ependymoma, atypical teratoid rhabdoid tumour, and high grade glioma/diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma. The recent literature in pediatric neuro-oncology was reviewed, and a summary of the major findings are presented. Meaningful sub-classifications of these tumors have arisen, placing children into discrete categories of disease with requirements for targeted therapy. While the mainstay of therapy these past 30 years has been a combination of central nervous system irradiation and conventional chemotherapy, now with the advent of high resolution genetic mapping, targeted therapies have emerged, and less emphasis is being placed on craniospinal irradiation. In this article, the present and future perspective of pediatric brain malignancy are reviewed in detail. The progress that has been made offers significant hope for the future for patients with these tumours.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Korean Neurosurgical SocietySame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207