MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Power of Human Cancer Genetics as Revealed by Low-Grade Gliomas

2019· review· en· W2992804880 on OpenAlexafffund
David Jones, Pratiti Bandopadhayay, Nada Jabado

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Genetics · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
FundersNational Cancer InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchBrain Tumour Charity
KeywordsBiologyNeuroscienceCognitionComputational biologyEvolutionary biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The human brain contains a vast number of cells and shows extraordinary cellular diversity to facilitate the many cognitive and automatic commands governing our bodily functions. This complexity arises partly from large-scale structural variations in the genome, evolutionary processes to increase brain size, function, and cognition. Not surprisingly given recent technical advances, low-grade gliomas (LGGs), which arise from the glia (the most abundant cell type in the brain), have undergone a recent revolution in their classification and therapy, especially in the pediatric setting. Next-generation sequencing has uncovered previously unappreciated diverse LGG entities, unraveling genetic subgroups and multiple molecular alterations and altered pathways, including many amenable to therapeutic targeting. In this article we review these novel entities, in which oncogenic processes show striking age-related neuroanatomical specificity (highlighting their close interplay with development); the opportunities they provide for targeted therapies, some of which are already practiced at the bedside; and the challenges of implementing molecular pathology in the clinic.

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)0.000
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 score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.361 · 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

Citations45
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of GeneticsSame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207