Expert consensus statements for Waldeyer's ring involvement in pediatric Hodgkin lymphoma: The staging, evaluation, and response criteria harmonization (SEARCH) for childhood, adolescent, and young adult Hodgkin lymphoma (CAYAHL) group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Waldeyer's ring (WR) involvement in pediatric Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) is extremely rare and criteria for determining involvement and response to treatment are unclear. The international Staging, Evaluation, and Response Criteria Harmonization for Childhood, Adolescent and Young Adult Hodgkin Lymphoma (SEARCH for CAYAHL) Group performed a systematic review of the literature in search of involvement or response criteria, or evidence to support specific criteria. Only 166 cases of HL with WR involvement were reported in the literature, 7 of which were pediatric. To date no standardized diagnostic or response assessment criteria are available. Given the paucity of evidence, using a modified Delphi survey technique, expert consensus statements were developed by the SEARCH group to allow for a more consistent definition of disease and response evaluation related to this rare site of involvement among pediatric oncologists. The available evidence and expert consensus statements are summarized.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.093 | 0.136 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".