MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2808896472 · doi:10.1093/neuonc/noy059.718

TBIO-30. MOLECULAR LANDSCAPE AND CLINICAL CORRELATIONS OF CNS SARCOMAS

2018· article· en· W2808896472 on OpenAlexaff
Adriana Fonseca, Ben Ho, Jonathon Torchia, Sarah Leary, Mei Lu, Gino Sommers, Abha A. Gupta, Ronald Grant, J. K. Norman, Lucie Lafay‐Cousin, Cynthia Hawkins, Ute Bartels, Éric Bouffet, Annie Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCentral nervous systemPathologyBiologyCancer researchSarcomaMesenchymal stem cellImmunohistochemistryMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Central nervous system (CNS) sarcomas are rare mesenchymal tumors accounting for less than 0.2% of intracranial (IC) tumors. Due to their rarity molecular insights they may be misdiagnosed as embryonal brain tumors, thus best clinical approach has been lacking 17 IC and 4 extracranial (EC) sarcomas were examined using methylation profiles and RNASeq analyses to define molecular features and clinicopathologic correlations. CNS sarcomas segregate into 3 sub-groups; the majority exhibited CIC (n=17) or EWS (n=9) fusions, a small subset (n=3) has no defining alteration. All IC EC sarcomas with the same molecular alterations indicating they were not distinct brain tumor types. Median age was 4.25-yrs, 10.6-yrs and 14-yrs for the CIC, EWS and undifferentiated subgroup respectively. The 5-yr PFS was 33%, 75% and 100% and OS was 49%,83% and 100% for the CIC, EWS and undifferentiated group respectively. IC and EC sarcomas represent a common molecular diseases, and should be treated using similar approaches.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuro-Oncology→Same topicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→