Perspective of Adults With Neurofibromatosis 1 and Cutaneous Neurofibromas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the perspectives of adults with neurofibromatosis 1 (NF1) regarding cutaneous neurofibroma (cNF) morbidity, treatment options, and acceptable risk-benefit ratio to facilitate the design of patient-centered clinical trials. METHODS: An online survey developed by multidisciplinary experts and patient representatives of the Response Evaluation in Neurofibromatosis and Schwannomatosis (REiNS) cNF Working Group was distributed to adults with NF1 (n = 3,734) in the largest international database of individuals with any form of NF. Eligibility criteria included self-reported NF1 diagnosis, age ≥18 years, ≥1 cNF, and ability to read English. RESULTS: A total of 548 adults with NF1 responded to the survey. Respondents ranked appearance, number, and then location as the most bothersome features of raised cNF. Seventy-five percent of respondents considered a partial decrease of 33%-66% in the number or size of cNF as a meaningful response to experimental treatments. Most respondents (48%-58%) were willing to try available cNF treatments but were not aware of options outside of surgical removal. Regarding experimental agents, respondents favored topical, then oral medications. Most individuals (>65%) reported being "very much" or "extremely willing" to try experimental treatments, especially those with the highest cNF burden. Many respondents were not willing to tolerate side effects like nausea/vomiting (51%) and rash (46%). The greatest barriers to participation in cNF clinical trials were cost of participation and need to take time off work. CONCLUSIONS: Most adults with NF1 are willing to consider experimental therapies for treatment of cNF. These data will guide the design of patient-centered clinical trials for adults with cNF.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".