MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402118551 · doi:10.1093/neuonc/noae170

cIMPACT-NOW update 8: Clarifications on molecular risk parameters and recommendations for WHO grading of meningiomas

2024· review· en· W4402118551 on OpenAlexaff
Felix Sahm, Kenneth Aldape, Priscilla K. Brastianos, Daniel J. Brat, Sonika Dahiya, Andreas von Deimling, Caterina Giannini, Mark R. Gilbert, David N. Louis, David R. Raleigh, Guido Reifenberger, Sandro Santagata, Chitra Sarkar, Gelareh Zadeh, Pieter Wesseling, Arie Perry

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMeningioma and schwannoma management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsGrading (engineering)MedicineMedical physicsPsychologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Meningiomas are the most frequent primary intracranial tumors. Hence, they constitute a major share of diagnostic specimens in neuropathology practice. The 2021 WHO Classification of Central Nervous System Tumors ("CNS5") has introduced the first molecular grading parameters for meningioma with oncogenic variants in the TERT promoter and homozygous deletion of CDKN2A/B as markers for CNS WHO grade 3. However, after the publication of the new classification volume, clarifications were requested, not only on novel but also on long-standing questions in meningioma grading that were beyond the scope of the WHO "blue book." In addition, more recent research into possible new molecular grading parameters could not yet be implemented in the 2021 classification but constitutes a compelling body of literature. Hence, the consortium to inform molecular and practical approaches to CNS tumor taxonomy-not official WHO (cIMPACT-NOW) Steering Committee convened a working group to provide such clarification and assess the evidence of possible novel molecular criteria. As a result, this cIMPACT-NOW update provides guidance for more standardized morphological evaluation and interpretation, most prominently pertaining to brain invasion, identifies scenarios in which advanced molecular testing is recommended, proposes to assign CNS WHO grade 2 for cases with CNS WHO grade 1 morphology but chromosomal arm 1p deletion in combination with 22q deletion and/or NF2 oncogenic variants, and discusses areas in which the current evidence is not yet sufficient to result in new recommendations.

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)0.055
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.108
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.292

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0550.108
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0070.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0090.006
Research integrity0.0090.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.011

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Citations101
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuro-OncologySame topicMeningioma and schwannoma managementFrench-language works237,207