MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3213906824 · doi:10.1093/noajnl/vdab158

Reevaluating surgery and re-irradiation for locally recurrent pediatric ependymoma—a multi-institutional study

2021· article· en· W3213906824 on OpenAlexaff
David Y. Mak, Normand Laperrière, Vijay Ramaswamy, Éric Bouffet, Jeffrey C. Murray, Rene McNall‐Knapp, Kevin Bielamowicz, Arnold C. Paulino, Wafik Zaky, Susan L. McGovern, M. Fatih Okcu, Uri Tabori, Doaa Atwi, Peter B. Dirks, Michael D. Taylor, Derek S. Tsang, Abhishek Bavle

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology Advances · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpendymomaMedicineRadiation therapyOverall survivalLog-rank testSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The goal of this study was to evaluate extent of surgical resection, and timing and volume of re-irradiation, on survival for children with locally recurrent ependymoma. Methods Children with locally recurrent ependymoma treated with a second course of fractionated radiotherapy (RT2) from 6 North American cancer centers were reviewed. The index time was from the start of RT2 unless otherwise stated. Results Thirty-five patients were included in the study. The median doses for first radiation (RT1) and RT2 were 55.8 and 54 Gy, respectively. Median follow-up time was 5.6 years. Median overall survival (OS) for all patients from RT2 was 65 months. Gross total resection (GTR) was performed in 46% and 66% of patients prior to RT1 and RT2, respectively. GTR prior to RT2 was independently associated with improved progression-free survival (PFS) for all patients (HR 0.41, P = 0.04), with an OS benefit (HR 0.26, P = 0.03) for infratentorial tumors. Median PFS was superior with craniospinal irradiation (CSI) RT2 (not reached) compared to focal RT2 (56.9 months; log-rank P = 0.03). All distant failures (except one) occurred after focal RT2. Local failures after focal RT2 were predominantly in patients with less than GTR pre-RT2. Conclusions Patients with locally recurrent pediatric ependymoma should be considered for re-treatment with repeat maximal safe resection (ideally GTR) and CSI re-irradiation, with careful discussion of the potential side effects of these treatments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations14
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuro-Oncology AdvancesSame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207