MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3131193820 · doi:10.1002/pbc.28964

Response criteria for intraocular retinoblastoma: RB‐RECIST

2021· article· en· W3131193820 on OpenAlexaff
Jesse L. Berry, Francis L. Munier, Brenda L. Gallie, Ashley Polski, Sona Shah, Carol L. Shields, Dan S. Gombos, Kathleen Ruchalski, Christina Stathopoulos, Rachana Shah, Rima Jubran, Jonathan W. Kim, Prithvi Mruthyunjaya, Brian P. Marr, Matthew W. Wilson, Rachel C. Brennan, Guillermo Chantada, Murali Chintagumpala, A. Linn Murphree

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Blood & Cancer · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Oncology and Treatments
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Eye Institute
KeywordsMedicineRetinoblastomaResponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid TumorsClinical trialRadiological weaponOncologyMedical physicsIntensive care medicineInternal medicineRadiologyPhases of clinical research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Standardized guidelines for assessing tumor response to therapy are essential for designing and conducting clinical trials. The Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) provide radiological standards for assessment of solid tumors. However, no such guidelines exist for the evaluation of intraocular cancer, and ocular oncology clinical trials have largely relied on indirect measures of therapeutic response-such as progression-free survival-to evaluate the efficacy of treatment agents. Herein, we propose specific criteria for evaluating treatment response of retinoblastoma, the most common pediatric intraocular cancer, and emphasize a multimodal imaging approach for comprehensive assessment of retinoblastoma tumors in clinical trials.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.502
Threshold uncertainty score0.879

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations16
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric Blood & CancerSame topicOcular Oncology and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207