Tenth International Symposium on Pediatric Neuro-Oncology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A brain stem glioma represents a therapeutic challenge.Treatment plans usually incorporate radiation therapy +/-chemotherapy, but the results are still dismal.We present the case of a ten-year-old boy who was admitted to our care with unsteady gait, weakness of the left arm and leg, VI and VII cranial nerves dysfunction, and abnormal level of consciousness.The MRI demonstrated a 3x3x3 cm lesion of the pons extending to the right portion of the midbrain, hyperintense on T2-weighted sequences and hypointense on precontrast T1-weighted sequences with heterogeneous enhancement after gadolinium.The spinal MRI was negative for metastatic disease.Hydrocephalus was present and a shunt was implanted, but a surgical approach to the lesion was not indicated because of the anatomic localization of the tumour.On the basis of the clinico-radiological findings, we suspected a lowgrade glioma and started a 1-year chemotherapy with Vincristine (1,5 mg/m 2 ) and Carboplatin (550 mg/m 2 ) according to the Low-grade Glioma SIOP Protocol, with careful clinical and radiological monitoring.The tumour response to chemotherapy at 12, 24, 35, and 47 weeks demonstrated a gradual decrease of the greatest dimensional diameters and of the contrast enhancement of the tumour, while the patient showed a concomitant improvement of the neurological findings.At week 54 the patient was on clinical complete remission, and the MRI demonstrated a reduced hypo-isointense brain stem lesion without contrast enhancement on T1-weighted sequences.Thus, he was referred to the radiotherapist to start fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy of the residual lesion.The patient is alive with clinical complete remission at 20 months from diagnosis.In this case a careful clinical and radiological evaluation of the brain stem tumour, even without the histological diagnosis, permitted us to obtain an extremely good response with a chemotherapy protocol for low-grade glioma. 2.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.055 | 0.014 |
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".