MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405217724 · doi:10.1002/pbc.31469

Feasibility of Utilizing a Brief Neurocognitive Battery in 3‐Year‐Old Patients During Treatment for Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia

2024· article· en· W4405217724 on OpenAlexaff
Sameera Ramjan, Peter D. Cole, Melanie Blair‐Thies, Lewis B. Silverman, Amy Fredrickson, Adrian Schembri, Jennifer Welch, Justine M. Kahn, Kara M. Kelly, Thai Hoa Tran, Bruno Michon, Lisa Gennarini, Stephen A. Sands

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Blood & Cancer · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer-related cognitive impairment studies
Canadian institutionsCentre hospitalier universitaire de QuébecUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsNeurocognitiveMedicineLymphoblastic LeukemiaPediatricsPediatric oncologyCognitionLeukemiaInternal medicinePsychiatryCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) is associated with neurocognitive deficits in young children. While computerized measures have been utilized in pediatric oncology research, they exclude patients below the age of 4 years. Patients enrolled on "Treatment of Newly Diagnosed Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia in Children and Adolescents" were offered participation in an optional neurocognitive study. Three-year old patients did not differ from 4-year-old patients in their ability to perform or complete the tests. Including patients diagnosed at age 3 will serve to improve our understanding of at-risk patients and their neurocognitive trajectory both during and after treatment.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric Blood & CancerSame topicCancer-related cognitive impairment studiesFrench-language works237,207