MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2913928134 · doi:10.1038/s41571-019-0177-5

Challenges to curing primary brain tumours

2019· review· en· W2913928134 on OpenAlexaff
Kenneth Aldape, Kevin M. Brindle, Louis Chesler, Rajesh Chopra, Amar Gajjar, Mark R. Gilbert, Nicholas G. Gottardo, David H. Gutmann, Darren Hargrave, Eric C. Holland, David Jones, Johanna A. Joyce, Pamela Kearns, Mark W. Kieran, Ingo K. Mellinghoff, Melinda S. Merchant, Stefan M. Pfister, Steven M. Pollard, Vijay Ramaswamy, Jeremy N. Rich, Giles Robinson, David H. Rowitch, John H. Sampson, Michael D. Taylor, Paul Workman, Richard J. Gilbertson

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Reviews Clinical Oncology · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity Health Network
FundersCancer Research UKNational Institutes of HealthNational Cancer InstituteNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeMedical Research CouncilBrain Tumour Charity
KeywordsBrain cancerBrain researchMedicineIntensive care medicineNeuroscienceCancerPsychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite decades of research, brain tumours remain among the deadliest of all forms of cancer. The ability of these tumours to resist almost all conventional and novel treatments relates, in part, to the unique cell-intrinsic and microenvironmental properties of neural tissues. In an attempt to encourage progress in our understanding and ability to successfully treat patients with brain tumours, Cancer Research UK convened an international panel of clinicians and laboratory-based scientists to identify challenges that must be overcome if we are to cure all patients with a brain tumour. The seven key challenges summarized in this Position Paper are intended to serve as foci for future research and investment.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.308
GPT teacher head0.550
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations972
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature Reviews Clinical OncologySame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207