MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3087572770 · doi:10.1002/pbc.28627

Treatment response of CNS high‐grade neuroepithelial tumors with <i>MN1</i> alteration

2020· article· en· W3087572770 on OpenAlexafffund
Lorena Baroni, Carlos Rugilo, Fabiana Lubieniecki, Claudia Sampor, Candela Freytes, Liana Nobre, Jordan R. Hansford, Vajiranee S. Malalasekera, Michal Zápotocký, Andrew Dodgshun, Ofelia Cruz, Andrés Morales La Madrid, Cinzia Lavarino, Mariona Suñol, Stefan Rutkowski, Ulrich Schüller, Éric Bouffet, Vijay Ramaswamy, Daniel Alderete

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Blood & Cancer · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
FundersGarron Family Cancer CentreCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchTerry Fox Foundation
KeywordsMedicineNeuroepithelial cellStem cellBiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Central nervous system high-grade neuroepithelial tumor with MN1 alteration (CNS HGNET-MN1) is a rare recently described entity. Fourteen CNS HGNET-MN1 patients were identified using genome-wide methylation arrays/RT-PCR across seven institutions. All patients had surgery (gross total resection: 10; subtotal resection: four) as initial management followed by observation alone in three patients, followed by radiotherapy in eight patients (focal: five; craniospinal: two; CyberKnife: one) and systemic chemotherapy in three patients. Seven patients relapsed; five local and two metastatic, despite adjuvant radiotherapy, of which three died. Treatment of CNS HGNET-MN1 remains a major treatment challenge despite aggressive surgical resections and upfront radiotherapy, warranting new approaches to this rare malignancy.

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)0.000
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric Blood & CancerSame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207