MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4298125925 · doi:10.1093/nop/npac077

Association between preoperative neurocognitive status and IDH1 mutation status in high-grade gliomas

2022· article· en· W4298125925 on OpenAlexaff
Evangelia Liouta, Aristotelis Kalyvas, Spyridon Komaitis, Evangelos Drosos, Christos Koutsarnakis, Juan M. García‐Gómez, Javier Juan–Albarracín, Vasileios K. Katsaros, Theodosis Κalamatianos, Theodoros Argyrakos, George Stranjalis

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology Practice · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeurocognitiveAssociation (psychology)IDH1MedicineOncologyInternal medicineGliomaPsychologyMutationCognitionPsychiatryGeneticsBiologyCancer researchPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background High-grade glioma (HGG) patients present with variable impairment in neurocognitive function (NCF). Based on that, isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1) wild-type HGGs are more aggressive than IDH1 mutant-type ones, we hypothesized that patients with IDH1 wild-type HGG would exhibit more severe NCF deficits than their IDH1 mutant counterparts. Methods NCF was assessed by Mini Mental Status Exam (MMSE), Trail Making Test (TMT), Digit Span (DS), and Controlled Word Association Test (COWAT) tests in 147 HGG patients preoperatively. Results Analyses between IDH1 groups revealed a significant difference on MMSE concentration component (p ≤ .01), DS (p ≤ .01), TMTB (p ≤ .01), and COWAT (p ≤ .01) scores, with the IDH1 wild group performing worse than the IDH1 mutant one. Age and tumor volume were inversely correlated with MMSE concentration component (r = −4.78, p < .01), and with MMSE concentration (r = −.401, p < .01), TMTB (r = −.328, p < .01), and COWAT phonemic scores (r = −.599, p < .01), respectively, but only for the IDH1 wild-type group. Analyses between age-matched subsamples of IDH1 groups revealed no age effect on NCF. Tumor grade showed nonsignificance on NCF (p > .05) between the 2 IDH1 mutation subgroups of grade IV tumor patients. On the contrary, grade III group showed a significant difference in TMTB (p < .01) and DS backwards (p < .01) between IDH1 subgroups, with the mutant one outperforming the IDH1 wild one. Conclusions Our findings indicate that IDH1 wild-type HGG patients present greater NCF impairment, in executive functions particularly, compared to IDH1 mutant ones, suggesting that tumor growth kinetics may play a more profound role than other tumor and demographic parameters in clinical NCF of HGG patients.

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)0.004
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 score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.817

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.302 · 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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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