MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2809463855 · doi:10.1093/neuonc/noy059.400

LGG-60. THE GENETIC LANDSCAPE OF PEDIATRIC LOW-GRADE GLIOMAS: INCIDENCE, PROGNOSIS AND RESPONSE TO THERAPY

2018· article· en· W2809463855 on OpenAlexaff
Scott Ryall, Michal Zápotocký, Kohei Fukuoka, Ana Guerreiro Stücklin, J Bennet, Anthony Arnoldo, Paul E. Kowalski, Monique Johnson, Álvaro Lassaletta, Ute Bartels, Annie Huang, Vijay Ramaswamy, David W. Ellison, Uri Tabori, Cynthia Hawkins

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeuroblastoma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCohortIDH1OncologyInternal medicineIncidence (geometry)Targeted therapyGliomaCumulative incidencePathologyCancer researchMutationCancerGeneBiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Molecularly characterization of pediatric low-grade glioma (pLGG) over the last decade has identified recurrent alterations, most commonly involving BRAF, and less frequently other pathways including MYB and MYBL1. Many of these molecular markers have been exploited clinically to aid in diagnosis and treatment decisions. However, their frequency and their prognostic significance remain unknown. Further, a significant portion of cases do not have any of these alterations and what underlies these cases is also unknown. To address this we compiled a cohort of 562 patients diagnosed at SickKids from 1990-2017. We identified molecular alterations in 454 (81%) of the cohort. The most frequent events were those involving BRAF; either as fusions (most commonly with KIAA1549 (30%)), or V600E mutations (17%) and NF-1 (22%). Less frequently, we identified recurrent FGFR1 fusions and mutations (3%), MYB/MYBL alterations (2%), H3F3A_K27M mutations (2%) and IDH1_R132H (0.5%), as well as other novel rare events. Survival analysis revealed significantly better progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of BRAF-KIAA1549 patients compared to BRAF_V600E with 10-year OS 97.7% (95%CI 95.5-100) and 83.9% (95%CI 72.5-95.6) respectively. In addition to survival, the molecular alterations predict differences in response to conventional therapeutics; BRAF fused patients show a 46% response-rate, versus only 14% in V600E patients. pLGG harboring H3F3A_K27M progressed early with median PFS of 11 months. In patients with MYB/MYBL1, FGFR1/FGFR2 alterations, we observed only one death (FGFR1_N546K case). The work here represents the largest cohort of pLGGs with molecular profiling and their impact on the clinical behaviour of the disease.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.565
Threshold uncertainty score0.396

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuro-OncologySame topicNeuroblastoma Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207