MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410349863 · doi:10.1002/pbc.31790

Remaining Challenges in the Treatment of Relapsed Wilms Tumor: Children's Oncology Group and International Society of Paediatric Oncology Perspectives

2025· article· en· W4410349863 on OpenAlexaff
Kathryn S. Sutton, Amy L. Walz, Alissa Groenendijk, Andrew J. Murphy, Luke Pater, Geert O. Janssens, Jack Brzezinski, Elizabeth A. Mullen, Filippo Spreafico, Jan Godziński, Justine N. van der Beek, Marc H.W.A. Wijnen, Marry M. van den Heuvel‐Eibrink, Max Pachl, Norbert Graf, Peter F. Ehrlich, Rhoikos Furtwängler, Jesper Brok, James I. Geller

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Blood & Cancer · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRenal and related cancers
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Cancer InstituteSt. Baldrick's Foundation
KeywordsMedicinePediatric oncologyCogWilms' tumorOncologyInternal medicineMultidisciplinary approachClinical OncologyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wilms tumor (WT) is the most common pediatric renal tumor, and with multidisciplinary treatment overall outcomes are excellent. However, a small subset of patients with WT will relapse. The ideal treatment of relapsed WT is yet to be defined. Ongoing studies through the Children's Oncology Group Renal Tumors Committee (COG-RTC) and the International Society of Paediatric Oncology Renal Tumor Study Group (SIOP-RTSG) aim to improve risk stratification and treatment strategies. Members met at the SIOP 55th Annual Congress 2023 to outline available data and knowledge gaps and develop future research priorities.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0060.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.271 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric Blood & CancerSame topicRenal and related cancersFrench-language works237,207