MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403483237 · doi:10.1093/neuonc/noae144.300

P17.13.B NANO-LM: AN UPDATED SCORECARD FOR THE CLINICAL ASSESSMENT OF PATIENTS WITH LEPTOMENINGEAL METASTASES

2024· article· en· W4403483237 on OpenAlexaff
Émilie Le Rhun, Lakshmi Nayak, Mary Jane Lim-Fat, Roberta Rudà, Elena Pentsova, Peter Forsyth, B O’Brien, Matthias Preusser, Priya Kumthekar, Dieta Brandsma, Michael Weller

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBrain Metastases and Treatment
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBalanced scorecardNano-MedicineMedical physicsRadiologyInternal medicineEngineeringProcess managementChemical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUND There are no validated tools for the clinical neurological assessment of patients with leptomeningeal metastases. However, clinical examination during the course of the disease guides medical management and is part of response assessment in clinical trials. Standardization of clinical neurological assessment in LM is therefore essential, also because MRI may not always be obtained owing to rapid clinical deterioration and itself subject to rater disagreement. MATERIAL AND METHODS The RANO-LM group launched a 2-steps process, aiming at improving and homogenizing the clinical assessment in patients with leptomeningeal metastasis. We report here on the first step: the establishment of a consensus scorecard. The RANO-LM group had 9 virtual meetings to define general recommendations on neurological assessment and selected domains of interest that should be tested. Domains of interest were selected from the Neurological Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (NANO) scale and from the first RANO-LM proposal. RESULTS Fourteen domains in neurological assessment were selected: level of consciousness, cognition, nausea and vomiting, vision, eye movement, facial strength, hearing, swallowing, dysarthria, limb strength, ataxia, walking, cauda equina symptoms-bowels and cauda equina symptoms-bladder). For each item, a clear instruction on how to perform the assessment is provided with scoring criteria between 0 and 2. The general status of the patient and use of steroids, pain medications, and anti-emetics should be considered when assessing the patient. Neurological sequelae from previous brain metastases or treatment (neuropathy, post-radiotherapy toxicities) should be rated at the baseline evaluation; it should be specified in the comments when symptoms or signs may be related to a condition other than leptomeningeal metastasis. The evaluation should be declared as non-evaluable when neurological symptoms or signs that develop during the follow-up are related or suspected to be related to comorbidities or any other medical event. In these situations, specific details should be included in the comments. If these signs and symptoms are retrospectively interpreted as related to leptomeningeal metastasis and not to any comorbidity, the date of symptoms or signs appearance should be retrospectively back-dated to assess the response. CONCLUSION A NANO-LM consensus scorecard has been established. A prospective validation of the proposal is currently ongoing at various medical centers.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.354 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuro-OncologySame topicBrain Metastases and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207