MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2885769467 · doi:10.1002/pbc.27390

Retrospective evaluation of a decision‐support algorithm (MIPOGG) for genetic referrals for children with neuroblastic tumors

2018· article· en· W2885769467 on OpenAlexafffund
Catherine Goudie, Noelle Cullinan, Anita Villani, Natalie Mathews, Kalene van Engelen, David Malkin, Meredith S. Irwin, William D. Foulkes

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Blood & Cancer · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeuroblastoma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMarketing Science Institute
KeywordsMedicineAlgorithmRetrospective cohort studyNeuroblastomaFamily historyReferralCancerGenetic predispositionFanconi anemiaPediatricsGenetic testingGene duplicationOncologyBioinformaticsInternal medicineGeneticsFamily medicineDiseaseGeneBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Neuroblastoma is the most common pediatric extracranial solid tumor. Germline pathogenic variants in ALK and PHOX2B, as well as other cancer predisposition genes, are increasingly implicated in the pathogenesis of neuroblastic tumors. A challenge for clinicians is the identification of children with neuroblastoma who require genetics evaluation for underlying cancer predisposition syndromes (CPS). PROCEDURE: We developed a decisional algorithm (MIPOGG) to identify which patients with neuroblastic tumors have an increased likelihood of an underlying CPS. This algorithm, comprising 11 Yes/No questions, evaluates features in the tumor, personal and family history that are suggestive of an underlying CPS. We assessed the algorithm's performance in a retrospective cohort. RESULTS: Two hundred and nine of 278 consecutive patients with neuroblastic tumors at The Hospital for Sick Children (2007-2016) had sufficient clinical data for retrospective application of the decisional algorithm. Fifty-one of 209 patients had been referred to genetics for CPS evaluation; 6/51 had a genetic or clinical confirmation of a CPS. The algorithm correctly identified all six children (Beckwith-Wiedemann (n = 2), Fanconi anemia, RB1, PHOX2B, chromosome duplication involving ALK) as requiring a genetic evaluation by using clinical features present at diagnosis. The level of agreement between the algorithm and physicians was 83.9%, with 15 more patients identified by the algorithm than by physicians as requiring a genetics referral. CONCLUSIONS: This decisional algorithm appropriately detected all patients who, following genetic evaluation, were confirmed to have a CPS and may improve the detection of CPS in patients with neuroblastic tumors compared with current practice.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.208
Threshold uncertainty score0.656

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.316 · 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

Citations26
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric Blood & CancerSame topicNeuroblastoma Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207