Central nervous system tumors in children under 5 years of age: a report on treatment burden, survival and long-term outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The challenges of treating central nervous system (CNS) tumors in young children are many. These include age-specific tumor characteristics, limited treatment options, and susceptibility of the developing CNS to cytotoxic therapy. The aim of this study was to analyze the long-term survival, health-related, and educational/occupational outcomes of this vulnerable patient population. METHODS: Retrospective study of 128 children diagnosed with a CNS tumor under 5 years of age at a single center in Switzerland between 1990 and 2019. RESULTS: Median age at diagnosis was 1.81 years [IQR, 0.98-3.17]. Median follow-up time of surviving patients was 8.39 years [range, 0.74-23.65]. The main tumor subtypes were pediatric low-grade glioma (36%), pediatric high-grade glioma (11%), ependymoma (16%), medulloblastoma (11%), other embryonal tumors (7%), germ cell tumors (3%), choroid plexus tumors (6%), and others (9%). The 5-year overall survival (OS) was 78.8% (95% CI, 71.8-86.4%) for the whole cohort. Eighty-seven percent of survivors > 5 years had any tumor- or treatment-related sequelae with 61% neurological complications, 30% endocrine sequelae, 17% hearing impairment, and 56% visual impairment at last follow-up. Most patients (72%) attended regular school or worked in a skilled job at last follow-up. CONCLUSION: Young children diagnosed with a CNS tumor experience a range of complications after treatment, many of which are long-lasting and potentially debilitating. Our findings highlight the vulnerabilities of this population, the need for long-term support and strategies for rehabilitation, specifically tailored for young children.
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 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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".