MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4290978561 · doi:10.1093/nop/npac048

Imaging in patients with glioblastoma: A national cohort study

2022· article· en· W4290978561 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Maureen Dumba, Anna Fry, Jon Shelton, Thomas C. Booth, Brynmor Jones, Haris Shuaib

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology Practice · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPublic Health EnglandCancer Research UKNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchImperial Oil Limited
KeywordsMedicineDebulkingCohortTumor DebulkingRadiation therapyMagnetic resonance imagingGlioblastomaRadiosurgeryRadiologySurgeryCancerInternal medicineChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Glioblastoma is the most common malignant brain tumor in adults and has a poor prognosis. This cohort of patients is diverse and imaging is vital to formulate treatment plans. Despite this, there is relatively little data on patterns of use of imaging and imaging workload in routine practice. Methods: We examined imaging patterns for all patients aged 15-99 years resident in England who were diagnosed with a glioblastoma between 1st January 2013 and 31st December 2014. Patients without imaging and death-certificate-only registrations were excluded. Results: The analytical cohort contained 4,307 patients. There was no significant variation in pre- or postdiagnostic imaging practice by sex or deprivation quintile. Postdiagnostic imaging practice was varied. In the group of patients who were treated most aggressively (surgical debulking and chemoradiation) and were MRI compatible, only 51% had a postoperative MRI within 72 hours of surgery. In patients undergoing surgery who subsequently received radiotherapy, only 61% had a postsurgery and preradiotherapy MRI. Conclusions: Prediagnostic imaging practice is uniform. Postdiagnostic imaging practice was variable. With increasing evidence and clearer recommendations regarding debulking surgery and planning radiotherapy imaging, the reason for this is unclear and will form the basis of further work.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.434

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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