A Systematic Review of Atypical Teratoid Rhabdoid Tumor in Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".