Different management of adrenocortical carcinoma in children compared to adults: is it time to share guidelines?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pediatric and adult adrenocortical carcinomas differ in many respects but treatment is often similar in both age groups. The Journal of Clinical Oncology recently published the results of a risk-stratified single-arm interventional trial conducted by the Children's Oncology Group in which 77 patients were treated in three different interventional cohorts. In this Point of View paper we comment on the treatment strategies adopted within the ARAR0332 trial in terms of surgery approach, duration of adjuvant therapies, and palliative chemotherapy. We focus on the differences in the treatment of pediatric ACC patients compared to the ESE/ENSAT and ESMO guidelines released in 2018 for adult patients. For example, patients in stratum 3 and 4 received 8 (instead of 6) cycles of EDP chemotherapy but 8 months (instead of 24) of mitotane adjuvant therapy. Bearing clearly in the mind that pediatric and adult ACC patients represent different settings, we wonder whether there could be some areas of intervention overlapping to constitute a continuum of disease across ages. Thus, pediatric and adult cohoperative groups should be encouraged to collaborate in order to reach common guidelines for the treatment of such a rare disease.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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 it