MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4365513332 · doi:10.3390/cancers15082296

Clinical Characteristics, Treatment Considerations, and Outcomes of Infants with Rhabdomyosarcoma

2023· review· en· W4365513332 on OpenAlexaff
Adam P. Yan, Rajkumar Venkatramani, Julie A. Bradley, Timothy B. Lautz, Cristian Urla, Johannes H. M. Merks, Sapna Oberoi

Bibliographic record

VenueCancers · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenCancerCare ManitobaUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRhabdomyosarcomaMedicinePediatricsPopulationSample size determinationClinical trialPathologySarcoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RMS most commonly presents in children and adolescents, however a subset of tumors are diagnosed in infants under one year of age. Due to the rarity of infant RMS, utilization of different treatment approaches and goals, and small sample sizes, the published studies of infants with RMS have yielded heterogeneous results. In this review, we discuss the outcomes of infants with RMS treated in various clinical trials and the strategies that various international cooperative groups have employed to reduce the morbidity and mortality related to treatment without compromising the overall survival of this population. This review discusses the unique scenarios of diagnosing and managing congenitals or neonatal RMS, spindle cell RMS and relapsed RMS. This review concludes by exploring novel approaches to diagnosis and management of infants with RMS that are currently being studied by various international cooperative groups.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.127
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancersSame topicSarcoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207