Consensus framework for conducting phase I/II clinical trials for children, adolescents, and young adults with pediatric low-grade glioma: Guidelines established by the International Pediatric Low-Grade Glioma Coalition Clinical Trial Working Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within the last few decades, we have witnessed tremendous advancements in the study of pediatric low-grade gliomas (pLGG), leading to a much-improved understanding of their molecular underpinnings. Consequently, we have achieved successful milestones in developing and implementing targeted therapeutic agents for treating these tumors. However, the community continues to face many unknowns when it comes to the most effective clinical implementation of these novel targeted inhibitors or combinations thereof. Questions encompassing optimal dosing strategies, treatment duration, methods for assessing clinical efficacy, and the identification of predictive biomarkers remain unresolved. Here, we offer the consensus of the international pLGG coalition (iPLGGc) clinical trial working group on these important topics and comment on clinical trial design and endpoint rationale. Throughout, we seek to standardize the global approach to early clinical trials (phase I and II) for pLGG, leading to more consistently interpretable results as well as enhancing the pace of novel therapy development and encouraging an increased focus on functional endpoints as well and quality of life for children faced with this disease.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".