MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2903467937 · doi:10.3389/fonc.2018.00567

A Systematic Review of Atypical Teratoid Rhabdoid Tumor in Adults

2018· review· en· W2903467937 on OpenAlexaff
Vivien Kin Yi Chan, Alessandro Marro, J. Max Findlay, Laura Schmitt, Sumit Das

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Oncology · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicChromatin Remodeling and Cancer
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of AlbertaWomen and Children’s Health Research InstituteUniversity of Alberta HospitalAlberta Hospital Edmonton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAtypical teratoid rhabdoid tumorMedicineBrain tumorPathologyAdjuvant therapyYoung adultNeoplasmOncologyInternal medicineImmunohistochemistryChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Atypical teratoid/rhabdoid tumor in adults is a relatively rare malignant neoplasm. It is characterized by the presence of rhabdoid cells in combination with loss of either the INI1 or BRG1protein from the tumor cells. Methods: A systematic review was conducted using MEDLINE using the terms ‘atypical teratoid rhabdoid tumor’ AND ‘adult’. The systematic review was supplemented with relevant articles from the references. Cases were included if the pathology was confirmed by loss of INI1 or BRG1. We included a case from our institution. The dataset was analyzed using descriptive statistics and log-rank test. Results: A total of 50 cases from 29 articles were included in this study. The average age at diagnosis was 36.7 years. The most common locations reported are the sellar region and cerebral hemispheres (without deep grey matter involvement). Of the 50 cases, 14 were reported to show evidence of dissemination. The average overall survival was 20 months. There was a significant difference in survival between the adjuvant therapy groups (p=<0.0001). Conclusion: Atypical teratoid rhabdoid tumor of the central nervous system in adults is a rare neoplasm associated with a poor prognosis in a majority of patients. The treatment and clinical course are highly variable, and it remains unclear which factors impact prognosis.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.361
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.309 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
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

Citations56
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in OncologySame topicChromatin Remodeling and CancerFrench-language works237,207