MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4232050684 · doi:10.1200/jco.2010.34.1537

Reply to J.C. Lindsey et al

2011· article· fr· W4232050684 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Uri Tabori, Michael D. Taylor, Éric Bouffet, David Malkin, Cynthia Hawkins

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2011
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
FundersHospital for Sick Children
KeywordsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the last year, a renaissance has occurred in the role of TP53 in pediatric medulloblastoma.After initial reports in the early 1990s 1 that stated that TP53 mutations are rare in medulloblastomas, this association was not further explored.A clinical observation that there were no long-term survivors among patients with TP53mutated medulloblastomas in the setting of Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS) prompted us to report this observation and open collaborations with Pfaff et al to further explore the issue.Since then, two other publications by both Pfaff et al 2 and by Lindsey et al 3 have added new dimensions to the story.Taken together, the studies indicate that TP53 mutations occur in approximately 5% to 10% of medulloblastomas and are not associated with younger age, metastatic status, or a specific subgroup, 4 which suggests that, in most cases, this is a secondary or late event.Furthermore, a striking association between TP53 and CTNNB1 mutations was observed by Pfaff et al and the British group, 3 whereas this was not the case in the Toronto cohort 5 in which CTNNB1 mutations were not seen.Why CTNNB1 mutant medulloblastomas are so rare in Toronto is not currently clear, but that is not associated with a selection bias as our patient population is community-based without any referral bias.With the addition of the British study 3 and the study by Pfaff et al, 2 it is clear that TP53 mutations are not associated with universal fatality when assessed across medulloblastoma as a whole.However, that TP53 mutations carry no prognostic information has not been adequately tested and there remain many important questions that need to be addressed.First, none of the Toronto patients had CTNNB1 mutations.Combining the two patients with TP53-mutated, non-Wnt/Wingless (WNT)activated medulloblastoma from the study by Lindsey et al, 3 the nine patients from the study by Pfaff et al, 2 and eight patients from our study, 5 13 (68%) of 19 died as a result of their disease.This suggests that, in the non-WNT-subgroup medulloblastomas, TP53 mutations may be an adverse prognostic factor.Secondly, the one patient from the series by Lindsey et al 3 who died as a result of disease had LFS.Since 2006, we have treated 30 patients with the St Jude Medulloblastoma protocol 03.6 Of these, only one patient has died, and he had LFS, which further stresses the need to explore the role of LFS in medulloblastoma.Finally, the discrepancy between the North American 5 and the European 2,3 results needs further study.This may relate to different tumor biology (rarity of CTNNB1 mutations in our patients), but it may also relate to differences in therapy.A classic example of the latter is the acute lymphoblastic leukemia subtype with t(1;19) translocation, which constituted a high-risk group in the Pediatric Oncology Group-based antimetabolite protocols in North America 7 but was not associated with such adverse survival in Berlin-Frankfurt-Mu ¨nster-based European protocols.8 We are currently exploring these important issues together with Pfaff et al.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0340.050
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.011

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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.323 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics→French-language works237,207→