MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412514650 · doi:10.3390/curroncol32070410

Old Tools in a New Era: The Continued Relevance of Chemotherapy in Pediatric Neuro-Oncology

2025· review· en· W4412514650 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Kathleen Felton, Lucie Lafay‐Cousin, Sylvia Cheng

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicChromatin Remodeling and Cancer
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalAlberta Children's HospitalRoyal University Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedulloblastomaMedicineAtypical teratoid rhabdoid tumorChemotherapyOncologyBrain tumorInternal medicineBioinformaticsPathologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conventional chemotherapy continues to form the backbone of treatment for many pediatric central nervous system (CNS) tumors. Advances have been made especially in the molecular underpinning of certain pediatric CNS tumors, allowing for advancement and consideration in incorporating this molecular information in molecular targeted therapy or appropriate de-escalation or escalation of therapy. In very young children with embryonal CNS tumors, intensive high-dose chemotherapy approaches have been used with varied increased survival in medulloblastoma, atypical teratoid rhabdoid tumor (ATRT), and rare embryonal subtypes, but there are certain molecular risk groups that require new therapies, such as the ATRT MYC subtype. Some CNS tumors remain resistant or refractory to conventional chemotherapy, especially in relapsed disease. Strategies to explore combination therapies with chemotherapy, novel agents, and novel approaches are needed to improve survival in this population in the future.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.340 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicChromatin Remodeling and CancerFrench-language works237,207