MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4253312121 · doi:10.1093/neuonc/now073.105

HG-109CONTEMPORARY SURVIVAL ENDPOINTS: AN INTERNATIONAL DIFFUSE INTRINSIC PONTINE GLIOMA REGISTRY STUDY

2016· article· en· W4253312121 on OpenAlexaff
Tabitha Cooney, James C. League-Pascual, Adam Lane, Lindsey M. Hoffman, Ute Bartels, Éric Bouffet, Stewart Goldman, Sarah Leary, Nicholas K. Foreman, Roger J. Packer, Alberto Broniscer, Mark W. Kieran, Jane E. Minturn, Melanie Comito, Emmett Broxon, Chie‐Schin Shih, Soumen Khatua, Murali Chintagumpala, Anne Carret, Tim Hassall, Joshua Baugh, Brooklyn Chaney, Renee Doughman, James L. Leach, Blaise V. Jones, Maryam Fouladi, Michelle Monje, Kathy Warren

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGliomaOncologyCancer research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Rapidly evolving insight into the biology of diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma (DIPG) is translating into robust development of clinical trials. Determination of therapeutic benefit after time of progression remains difficult to assess. We sought to measure survival endpoints in a large, contemporary international DIPG population. METHODS: Patients registered in the International DIPG registry, fulfilled pre-defined DIPG diagnostic criteria, and diagnosed between January 1st, 2004 and January 1st, 2014 were eligible. PFS was defined as time from diagnosis to date of radiographic progression or death from any cause. Time to progression (TTP) was time of diagnosis to date of radiographic progression, death was censored. Overall survival (OS) was defined as time of diagnosis until death or censorship. Post-progression survival (PPS) was measured both as OS minus TTP and OS minus PFS. RESULTS: We identified 253 patients; 103 patients did not have a documented date of progression. Median OS was 10.7 months, percent OS at 1,2,5 year (40, 8, 0). Median PFS was 6.9 months. Median TTP was 5 months. Median PPS as OS-PFS was 2 months, percent PPS at 6 month, 9 month (23,12). Median PPS as OS-TTP was 4.8 months, percent PPS at 6 month, 9 month (38,19). CONCLUSIONS: Our study is the first to define survival endpoints in a large, contemporary DIPG population. Differences in PFS and TTP and thus PPS measurements are directly related to the large portion of patients without progression data. Future work requires a collaborative effort to optimally define progression and survival endpoints.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.710
Threshold uncertainty score0.660

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuro-OncologySame topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingFrench-language works237,207