MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4292316598 · doi:10.1093/noajnl/vdac133

Systematic review of diffuse hemispheric glioma, H3 G34-mutant: Outcomes and associated clinical factors

2022· article· en· W4292316598 on OpenAlexafffund
Cameron Crowell, Daddy Mata‐Mbemba, Julie Bennett, Kara Matheson, Michael P. Mackley, Sébastien Perreault, Craig Erker

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology Advances · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineNova Scotia Health AuthorityHospital for Sick ChildrenIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreDalhousie University
FundersIWK Health Centre
KeywordsGliomaMutantNeurosciencePsychologyMedicineBiologyGeneticsCancer research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: A comprehensive review and description of the clinical features that impact prognosis for patients with diffuse hemispheric glioma, H3 G34-mutant (G34-DHG) is needed. Understanding survival and prognostic features is paramount for clinical advancements and patient care. Methods: PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched for English articles published between January 1, 2012 and June 30, 2021. Eligible studies included patient(s) of any age diagnosed with an H3 G34-mutant brain tumor with at least one measure of survival or progression. Patient-level data were pooled for analyses. This study was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021267764) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. Results: promoter methylation in 70%. Median time-to-progression was 10.0 months (IQR: 6.0-18.0) and median overall survival was 17.3 months (95% CI: 15.0 to 22.9). The median time from progression to death was 5.0 months (IQR: 3.0-11.7). Factors associated with survival duration were age, as patients ≥18 y/o demonstrated longer survival (hazard ratio [HR] =2.05, 95% CI: 1.16 to 3.62), and degree of upfront resection, as near or gross-total resection demonstrated longer survival compared to those with less than near-total resection (HR = 3.75, 95% CI: 2.11 to 6.62). Conclusion: This systematic review highlights available clinical data for G34-DHG demonstrating poor outcomes and important prognostic features, while serving as a baseline for future research and clinical trials.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
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 score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.010
Bibliometrics0.0090.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.350
Teacher spread0.325 · 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

Citations44
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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