MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3112871129 · doi:10.1093/neuonc/noaa222.456

LINC-21. SURVEY ON THE RESOURCES AVAILABLE FOR PEDIATRIC NEURO-ONCOLOGY IN CHILE, SOUTH AMERICA

2020· article· en· W3112871129 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad H Abu-Arja, Nicolás Rojas del Río, Andrés Morales La Madrid, Álvaro Lassaletta, Rosita Moreno, Miguel Valero, Verónica Pérez, Felipe Espinoza, Eduardo B. Fernández, J. Lopez Diaz, José Santander, Juan Tordecilla, Veronica Oyarce, Katherine Kopp, Ute Bartels, Ibrahim Qaddoumi, Jonathan L. Finlay, Adrian Cáceres, Ximena Espinoza, Diana S. Osorio

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPediatric oncologyMedicinePediatric cancerGemcitabineChildhood cancerTopotecanRadiation oncologyRadiation therapyOncologyCancerPediatricsInternal medicineChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUND We report the human and material resources available in Chilean institutions providing pediatric neuro-oncology services. METHODS A cross-sectional survey was distributed to 17 hospitals providing pediatric neuro-oncology services (Programa Infantil Nacional de Drogas Antineoplásicas (PINDA) centers=11, Private=6). RESULTS Response rate was 71% (PINDA=8; Private=4). Pediatric neuro-oncology services were mainly provided within general hospitals (67%). Registries for pediatric central nervous system (CNS) tumors and chemotherapy-related toxicities were available in 100% and 67% of centers, respectively. Children with CNS tumors were treated by pediatric oncologists in 92% of institutions; none were formally trained in neuro-oncology. The most utilized treatment protocols were the national PINDA protocols followed by the Children’s Oncology Group protocols. All World Health Organization essential medicines for childhood cancer were available in more than 80% of participating institutions except for gemcitabine, oxaliplatin, paclitaxel, and procarbazine. The median number of pediatric neurosurgeons per institution was two (range,0–8). General neuro-radiologists were available in 83% of institutions. Pathology specimens were sent to pediatric neuropathologists (33%), neuropathologists (25%), adult pathologists (25%), and pediatric pathologists (16.7%). In-house pediatric radiation oncologists were available in 25% of centers. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy, conformal radiotherapy and cobalt radiotherapy were utilized by 67%, 58% and 42% of hospitals, respectively. Only one center performed autologous hematopoietic cell transplant for pediatric CNS tumors. CONCLUSIONS These results provide a glimpse into the pediatric neuro-oncology services available in Chile. A wide range of up-to-date treatment modalities is available for children with CNS tumors in Chile. Establishing formal pediatric neuro-oncology training may be beneficial.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.101

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuro-OncologySame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207