MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399783279 · doi:10.1093/neuonc/noae064.742

LMIC-25. EXPANDING THE PEDIATRIC NEURO-ONCOLOGY TELECONFERENCE EXPERIENCES, A LUXURY, OR A NECESSITY?

2024· article· en· W4399783279 on OpenAlexaff
Essra’ Al Badarin, Omar Chamdine, Moatasem El‐Ayadi, Abeer Al-Battashi, Mohammed Al Nuaimi, Emam Alshamsi, Laila Hessissen, Hiba Altarrah, Eslam Maher, Roula Farah, Ata Ur Rehman Maaz, Waleed Saed, Ruba Haziemeh, Maher Khader Mustafa, Khadra Salami, Cynthia Hawkins, Mohamed S Abdelbaki, Ute Bartels, Uri Tabori, Éric Bouffet, Nisreen Amayiri

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvances in Oncology and Radiotherapy
Canadian institutionsSickKids Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTeleconferencePediatric oncologyMedicineOncologyInternal medicineComputer scienceMultimediaCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract INTRODUCTION Videoteleconference in neurooncology is feasible and sustainable. The well-established 20 years’ Sickkids/KHCC teleconferencing is an example. Since 2018, several regional centers joined these meetings to discuss their patients’ management plans. We aimed to evaluate the impact of this experience. METHODS We retrospectively reviewed the 56 meetings’ minutes (9/2018-12/2023) and compared the pre-conference suggested plans with the post-conference recommendations. We recorded if the recommendations were implemented and the impact perceived. RESULTS In total, 251 patients were discussed: KHCC (137) and non-KHCC (114). Four of the regional participating oncologists had dedicated pediatric neuro-oncology training. Patients were selected for discussion due to challenges in their management (i.e. with relapsed tumors, rare diagnoses, unexpected tumor behavior). Main diagnoses were: Low-grade-glioma (28%), High-grade-glioma (21%), and Medulloblastoma (17%). Of the 227 patients where the local team suggested a care plan, the teleconference recommendations concurred with the proposed plan in 50% of the cases, agreed on but provided an alternative plan option in 18% and disagreed on in 32% of the cases. The difference in recommendations mostly affected the proposed treatment modality (15%). In 64% of the discordant plans and 50% of the alternative plans, the treating team applied the recommendations. Challenges to apply the recommendations were mainly linked to patients’ factors (53%, plan refusal, traveling abroad, clinical deterioration), local multidisciplinary team consensus on a different plan (29%) or logistic difficulties (18%, e.g. drug access). CONCLUSIONS Improvement in patients’ care was likely achieved with the continuous effort of the local teams to implement the recommendations. Participating oncologists valued the shared educational experience learned from each other’s case discussions, especially those related to molecular-testing and implications on treatment. Joining such regional teleconferences is of particular importance to small-volume centers or those lacking a pediatric neurooncologist. Regional and international collaborations are a necessity when it comes to improving the care of children with CNS tumors.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.815
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.358 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuro-OncologySame topicAdvances in Oncology and RadiotherapyFrench-language works237,207