MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2902714370 · doi:10.1002/pbc.27556

The challenge of defining “ultra‐high‐risk” neuroblastoma

2018· review· en· W2902714370 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel A. Morgenstern, Rochelle Bagatell, Susan L. Cohn, Michael D. Hogarty, John M. Maris, Lucas Moreno, Julie R. Park, Andrew D.J. Pearson, Gudrun Schleiermacher, Dominique Valteau‐Couanet, Wendy B. London, Meredith S. Irwin

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Blood & Cancer · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeuroblastoma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRisk stratificationMedicineNeuroblastomaStratification (seeds)OncologyIntensive care medicineRisk assessmentInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given the biological and clinical heterogeneity of neuroblastoma, risk stratification is vital to determining appropriate treatment. Historically, most patients with high-risk neuroblastoma (HR-NBL) have been treated uniformly without further stratification. Attempts have been made to identify factors that can be used to risk stratify these patients and to characterize an "ultra-high-risk" (UHR) subpopulation with particularly poor outcome. However, among published data, there is a lack of consensus in the definition of the UHR population and heterogeneity in the endpoints and statistical methods used. This review summarizes our current understanding of stratification of HR-NBL and discusses the complex issues in defining UHR neuroblastoma.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.341
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 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

Citations72
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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