MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2946903114

Relapsed or refractory primary central nervous system lymphoma radiosurgery: Report of the International Gamma Knife Research Foundation.

2017· article· en· W2946903114 on OpenAlexaff
Shin Sm, Joshua S. Silverman, Greg Bowden, David Mathieu, H-C Yang, Lee Cc, Moses Tam, Paul Szelemej, Or Cohen‐Inbar, Jason P. Sheehan, Ajay Niranjan, Lunsford Ld, Douglas Kondziolka

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCNS Lymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePrimary central nervous system lymphomaRadiosurgeryRefractory (planetary science)Radiation therapyInterquartile rangeSalvage therapySurgeryMethotrexateChemotherapyNuclear medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

), and the median margin dose was 15 Gy (range, 8-20 Gy). Median follow-up from SRS was 11 months (interquartile range, 5.7-33.2 months). Twenty presented with treatment response to twenty-three tumors (12 complete, 11 partial). Fourteen patients relapsed or were refractory to salvage SRS, and local control was 95%, 91%, and 75% at 3, 6, and 12 months post SRS. Intracranial (in-field and out-of-field) and distant (systemic) PFS was 86%, 81%, and 55% at 3, 6, and 12 months post SRS. Toxicity of SRS was low, with one developing an adverse radiation effect requiring no additional intervention. Although methotrexate-based chemotherapy regimens with or without WBRT is the first-line management option for PCNSL, SRS may be used as an alternative option in properly selected patients with smaller relapsed or refractory PCNSL tumors.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations13
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicCNS Lymphoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207