MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4388590859 · doi:10.1093/neuonc/noad179.0796

NCMP-12. PREVALENCE OF RADIONECROSIS IN RECURRENT GLIOBLASTOMA

2023· article· en· W4388590859 on OpenAlexaff
Nicolas Morin, Sylvine Carrondo Cottin, Stéphan Saïkali, Karine Michaud, Myreille D’Astous

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsHôpital de l'Enfant-Jésus
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRadiological weaponTemozolomideRadiation therapySurgeryGlioblastomaRetrospective cohort studyDemographicsChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract INTRODUCTION Glioblastoma (GBM) standard treatment consists of maximum and safe surgical resection, followed by radiation therapy in combination with temozolomide. Some patients show radiological and/or clinical deterioration soon after radiotherapy treatment. Early MRI changes, in the first 3 months following radiation is considered pseudo-progression. After this initial period, changes are considered as tumor recurrence. However, cases of early radiological deterioration have been related to radionecrosis. When tumor progression is suspected on imaging, it may causes treatment withdrawal or change. Therefore, for a certain percentage of patients, effective treatment could be abandoned in the presence of radionecrosis. METHODS The aim of the study is to assess the prevalence of radionecrosis at the Hôpital de l'Enfant-Jésus. This is a retrospective, observational case-control study evaluating recurrent GBM patients who underwent a second resection surgery. RESULTS The charts of 110 GBM patients with second resection were retrospectively reviewed (men: 62%, mean age: 58.3 years). Among these patients, we observed 87 cases of GBM recurrence as compared to 23 cases of radionecrosis (21%). No statistically significant difference was observed between the two groups regarding demographics, survival, Karnofsky performance status, type of surgery and treatments received. However, in the radionecrosis group, decreases in time between the 2 surgeries (55.3 vs. 24.3 weeks, p = 0.006) and in the number of cycles of chemotherapy received (5.7 vs. 3.7 weeks, p = 0.004) were observed as compared to GBM group. CONCLUSIONS This study characterizes demographically the patients with second surgery for suspicion of GBM in order to better adapt the treatments. Clinical and radiological data could not differentiate radionecrosis from true tumor recurrence or progression. A prospective study will be carried out as a second step, in order to determine radiological or molecular factors that could predict the presence of radionecrosis.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuro-Oncology→Same topicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→