Re-evaluating Biopsy for Recurrent Glioblastoma: A Position Statement by the Christopher Davidson Forum Investigators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients with glioblastoma (GBM) need bold new approaches to their treatment, yet progress has been hindered by a relative inability to dynamically track treatment response, mechanisms of resistance, evolution of targetable mutations, and changes in mutational burden. We are writing on behalf of a multidisciplinary group of academic neuro-oncology professionals who met at the collaborative Christopher Davidson Forum at Washington University in St Louis in the fall of 2019. We propose a dramatic but necessary change to the routine management of patients with GBM to advance the field: to routinely biopsy recurrent GBM at the time of presumed recurrence. Data derived from these samples will identify true recurrence vs treatment effect, avoid treatments with little chance of success, enable clinical trial access, and aid in the scientific advancement of our understanding of GBM.
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 | 0.044 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.032 | 0.043 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".