MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2967854325 · doi:10.1200/jop.19.00190

Germ Cell Tumors in Adolescents and Young Adults

2019· review· en· W2967854325 on OpenAlexaff
Adriana Fonseca, A. Lindsay Frazier, Furqan Shaikh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Oncology Practice · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTesticular diseases and treatments
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGerm cell tumorsMalignancyYoung adultChildhood cancerPediatricsDiseaseOncologyCancerGynecologyInternal medicineChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Germ cell tumors (GCTs) are rare in childhood, representing only 3.5% of childhood cancers, but a common malignancy in adolescents and young adults (AYAs), accounting for 13.9% of neoplasms in adolescents between age 15 and 19 years. The overall outcomes of patients treated for GCTs are excellent. However, as seen in other cancers, outcomes for AYA patients are significantly worse. Understanding the reasons for this observation has led to different approaches to diagnosis, staging, and treatment. The Malignant Germ Cell International Consortium was created to bring together pediatric, gynecologic, and testicular cancer specialists to promote research initiatives and provide evidence-based approaches in the management of GCTs across different age groups. Collaboration between multiple subspecialties is essential to further understand the disease continuum, the underlying biologic characteristics, and the development of appropriate therapeutic approaches. This review focuses on the unique characteristics of patients with extracranial GCTs in the AYA group.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designlow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.362 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable · Other design
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

Citations63
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Oncology PracticeSame topicTesticular diseases and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207