The Role of Surgery in High-risk Neuroblastoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although intensive multimodal treatment has improved outcomes for patients with high-risk neuroblastoma, the specific role of primary tumor resection remains controversial. Many studies have been designed to determine whether the extent of surgical resection impacts survival; however, these reports have demonstrated conflicting results. There is also ongoing debate regarding the timing of primary tumor resection, with subtle differences in the approach between the large pediatric oncology cooperative consortia. Most of the published literature to date has been approached from a surgical viewpoint. Although most evidence supports surgery as part of the local control approach for high-risk neuroblastoma, recommendations for timing and extent of surgical resection are not consistent. This review summarizes our current understanding from the perspectives of both the pediatric oncologist and pediatric surgeons and discusses how the objectives of neuroblastoma primary surgical resection are different from that of other malignancies. Furthermore, this commentary will address how retrospective surgical outcome data may be interpreted in the setting of modern era high-risk neuroblastoma treatment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".