Consensus core clinical data elements for meningiomas (v2021.1)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With increasing molecular analyses of meningiomas, there is a need to harmonize language used to capture clinical data across centers to ensure that molecular alterations are appropriately linked to clinical variables of interest. Here the International Consortium on Meningiomas presents a set of core and supplemental meningioma-specific common data elements (CDEs) to facilitate comparative and pooled analyses. METHODS: The generation of CDEs followed the 4-phase process similar to other National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) CDE projects: discovery, internal validation, external validation, and distribution. RESULTS: The CDEs were organized into patient- and tumor-level modules. In total, 17 core CDEs (10 patient level and 7 tumor level) as well as 14 supplemental CDEs (7 patient level and 7 tumor level) were defined and described. These CDEs are now made publicly available for dissemination and adoption. CONCLUSIONS: CDEs provide a framework for discussion in the neuro-oncology community that will facilitate data-sharing for collaborative research projects and aid in developing a common language for comparative and pooled analyses. The meningioma-specific CDEs presented here are intended to be dynamic parameters that evolve with time and The Consortium welcomes international feedback for further refinement and implementation of these CDEs.
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 | 0.109 | 0.228 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.038 | 0.019 |
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".