Pediatric Brain Tumor Genetics: What Radiologists Need to Know
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brain tumors are the most common solid tumors in the pediatric population. Pediatric neuro-oncology has changed tremendously during the past decade owing to ongoing genomic advances. The diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of pediatric brain tumors are now highly reliant on the genetic profile and histopathologic features of the tumor rather than the histopathologic features alone, which previously were the reference standard. The clinical information expected to be gleaned from radiologic interpretations also has evolved. Imaging is now expected to not only lead to a relevant short differential diagnosis but in certain instances also aid in predicting the specific tumor and subtype and possibly the prognosis. These processes fall under the umbrella of radiogenomics. Therefore, to continue to actively participate in patient care and/or radiogenomic research, it is important that radiologists have a basic understanding of the molecular mechanisms of common pediatric central nervous system tumors. The genetic features of pediatric low-grade gliomas, high-grade gliomas, medulloblastomas, and ependymomas are reviewed; differences between pediatric and adult gliomas are highlighted; and the critical oncogenic pathways of each tumor group are described. The role of the mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway in pediatric low-grade gliomas and of histone mutations as epigenetic regulators in pediatric high-grade gliomas is emphasized. In addition, the oncogenic drivers responsible for medulloblastoma, the classification of ependymomas, and the associated imaging correlations and clinical implications are discussed. ©RSNA, 2018
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".