MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3112650211 · doi:10.1093/neuonc/noaa215.593

NCOG-55. HARMONIZING LANGUAGE TO MAXIMIZE IMPACT: AN UPDATE ON COMMON DATA ELEMENTS FOR MENINGIOMA AND REVIEW OF CLINICAL TRIALS IN MENINGIOMA

2020· article· en· W3112650211 on OpenAlexaff
Justin Z. Wang, Farshad Nassiri, Karolyn Au, Kate Drummond, Michael D. Jenkinson, Thomas Santarius, Jill S. Barnholtz‐Sloan, Francesco DiMeco, Evanthia Galanis, Andrea Saladino, Yueren Zhou, Suganth Suppiah, Jetan H. Badhiwala, Kenneth Aldape, Laila Poisson, Gelareh Zadeh

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMeningioma and schwannoma management
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of AlbertaUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeningiomaClinical trialMedical physicsOncologyInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUND With increasing studies reporting on the molecular profiling of meningiomas, there is a need to harmonize language used to capture clinical data across centers to ensure that molecular alterations are appropriately linked to clinical variables of interest. Here the International Consortium on Meningiomas presents a final set of core and supplemental meningioma-specific Common Data Elements (CDEs) to facilitate comparative and pooled analyses. METHODS The generation of CDEs followed the four-phase process similar to other National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) CDE projects: development/discovery based on data from published and ongoing meningioma trials, internal validation, external validation including presentation of our data form at the Society for Neuro-Oncology previously, and distribution. RESULTS We developed a set of CDEs organized into patient- and tumor-level modules. In total, the Consortium identified 16 core CDEs (9 patient-level and 7-tumour-level) e.g. age at index surgery, diagnosis of neurofibromatosis, prior chemotherapy or radiation, tumor location, extent of resection, recurrence, etc. An additional 15 supplemental CDEs were defined and described (8 patient-level and 7 tumour-level) e.g. race, cause of death, multiple tumors, tumor size, Simpson grade, second intervention, etc. These CDES are now made publicly available for dissemination and adoption. We also present a narrative review and analysis of recent and ongoing meningioma trials. CONCLUSIONS These CDEs provide a framework for discussion in the neuro-oncology community that will facilitating data sharing for collaborative research projects and aid in developing a common language for comparative and pooled analyses. The CDEs are intended to be dynamic parameters that evolve with time and The Consortium welcomes international feedback for further refinement and implementation of these CDEs.

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)0.286
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.477
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.714
Threshold uncertainty score0.881

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2860.477
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.013
Bibliometrics0.0280.037
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0140.010
Open science0.0120.014
Research integrity0.0060.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.008

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 head0.443
GPT teacher head0.535
Teacher spread0.092 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
DomainReporting
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuro-OncologySame topicMeningioma and schwannoma managementFrench-language works237,207