Response assessment in pediatric craniopharyngioma: recommendations from the Response Assessment in Pediatric Neuro-Oncology (RAPNO) Working Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Craniopharyngioma is a histologically benign tumor of the suprasellar region for which survival is excellent but quality of life is often poor secondary to functional deficits from tumor and treatment. Standard therapy consists of maximal safe resection with or without radiation therapy. Few prospective trials have been performed, and response assessment has not been standardized. METHODS: The Response Assessment in Pediatric Neuro-Oncology (RAPNO) committee devised consensus guidelines to assess craniopharyngioma response prospectively. RESULTS: Magnetic resonance imaging is the recommended radiologic modality for baseline and follow-up assessments. Radiologic response is defined by 2-dimensional measurements of both solid and cystic tumor components. In certain clinical contexts, response to solid and cystic disease may be differentially considered based on their unique natural histories and responses to treatment. Importantly, the committee incorporated functional endpoints related to neuro-endocrine and visual assessments into craniopharyngioma response definitions. In most circumstances, the cystic disease should be considered progressive only if growth is associated with acute, new-onset or progressive functional impairment. CONCLUSIONS: Craniopharyngioma is a common pediatric central nervous system tumor for which standardized response parameters have not been defined. A RAPNO committee devised guidelines for craniopharyngioma assessment to uniformly define response in future prospective 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 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 | 0.105 | 0.106 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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".