MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4290097496 · doi:10.1093/noajnl/vdac122

Clinical and molecular features of disseminated pediatric low-grade glioma and glioneuronal tumors: a systematic review and survival analysis

2022· review· en· W4290097496 on OpenAlexaff
Joseline Haizel‐Cobbina, Rut Thakkar, Kelsey Richard, Liping Du, Adrian Levine, Julie Bennett, Cynthia Hawkins, Uri Tabori, Michael C. Dewan

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology Advances · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGliomaMedicineCancer research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Disseminated pediatric low-grade gliomas and glioneuronal tumors (dpLGG/GNTs) are associated with a poorer prognosis than nondisseminated pLGG/GNTs. To date there is no comprehensive report characterizing the genome profile of dpLGG/GNTs and their relative survival. This systematic review aims to identify the pattern of genetic alterations and long-term outcomes described for dpLGG/GNT. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify relevant articles. A quality and risk of bias assessment of articles was done using the GRADE framework and ROBINS-I tool, respectively. Results: fusion (55%). BRAF p.V600E mutation was found in 7% of subjects. A higher proportion of subjects demonstrated primary dissemination compared to secondary dissemination (65% vs 25%). First-line chemotherapy consisted of an alkylation-based regimen and vinca alkaloids. Surgical intervention ranged from biopsy alone (59%) to surgical resection (41%) and CSF diversion (28%). Overall, 73% of cases were alive at last follow-up. Survival did not vary by tumor type or timing of dissemination. All studies reviewed either ranked low or moderate for both quality and risk of bias assessments. Conclusions: fusion were the most common alterations identified in dpLGG/GNT cases reviewed. The relative molecular heterogeneity between DLGG and DLGNT, however, deserves further exploration and ultimately correlation with their biologic behavior to better understand the pathogenesis of dpLGG/GNT.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.008
Bibliometrics0.0120.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.355 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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