MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4300414523 · doi:10.3171/foc.2006.20.1.3

Neurosurgical implications of neurofibromatosis Type I in children

2006· article· en· W4300414523 on OpenAlexaff
Merdas Al-Otibi, James T. Rutka

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurosurgical FOCUS · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurofibromatosis and Schwannoma Cases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNeurofibromatosisNeurosurgeryHydrocephalusScoliosisNeurofibromatosis type IMultidisciplinary teamPediatricsSurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neurofibromatosis Type 1 (NF1) is one of the most common inherited diseases in humans. It is caused by a mutation in the NF1 gene on chromosome 17, and is associated with numerous central and peripheral nervous system manifestations. Children with NF1 are at high risk of harboring numerous lesions that may require the attention of a neurosurgeon. Some of these include optic nerve gliomas, hydrocephalus, intraspinal tumors, and peripheral nerve tumors. Although most of the neoplasms that affect the brain, spine, and peripheral nerves of children are low-grade lesions, there is a small but real risk that some of these lesions may become high grade over time, requiring other forms of therapy than surgery alone. Other associated disorders that may result from NF1 in childhood include Chiari malformation Type I, scoliosis, and pulsating exophthalmos from the absence of the sphenoid wing. In this review, the major lesions that are found in children with NF1 are reviewed as well as the types of treatment that are offered by neurosurgeons and other members of the treating team. Today, optimum care of the child with NF1 is provided by a multidisciplinary team comprising neurosurgeons, neurologists, ophthalmologists, radiologists, orthopedic surgeons, and plastic surgeons.

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)0.000
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 score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.928

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations11
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurosurgical FOCUSSame topicNeurofibromatosis and Schwannoma CasesFrench-language works237,207