MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415403242 · doi:10.3390/cancers17203392

The Central Anatomical Question: Treatment of Lymphoma Within Border-Zone Anatomical Sites Adjacent to the Central Nervous System

2025· review· en· W4415403242 on OpenAlexaff
Candace Marsters, Chai W. Phua, Maria MacDonald, Gabriel Boldt, Seth Climans

Bibliographic record

VenueCancers · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalus
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern UniversityUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCentral nervous systemLymphomaDiseaseCategorizationPrimary central nervous system lymphomaAmbiguity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lymphomas involving the central nervous system (CNS) have worse outcomes, including both primary and secondary CNS lymphomas, which are associated with poorer overall survival outcomes. The World Health Organization classifies CNS lymphoma as arising from the brain, leptomeninges, and spinal cord, but this simplified CNS anatomical definition fails to incorporate areas of ambiguity that can be clinically relevant for treatment decision making. In this article, we review the anatomical boundaries of CNS lymphoma within select border-zone biological structures located at the CNS borders in order to gain a consensus working definition of CNS disease boundaries. We review anatomical localizations with border-zone CNS boundaries, including the dura, cavernous sinus, circumventricular organs, pituitary gland, and cranial nerves. Though some portions of the eye would be considered CNS and others extra-CNS, recommendations for this structure are outside the scope of this review. Through this review, we examine the impact of lymphomatous invasion on select CNS-bordering anatomical structures, aiming to better define treatment categorization as CNS or extra-CNS, with a focus on B cell lymphoma types.

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)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancersSame topicCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalusFrench-language works237,207