1 Glioblastoma: Is Survival Possible? By
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Glioblastoma multiforme are among the most deadly neoplasms and continue to be regarded as incurable and universally fatal. This reputation seems well deserved, at least as based on population-based outcome data over a twenty-year period from the Alberta Brain Tumor registry. Of 689 glioblastoma patients, only 2 % survived three years or longer, and of these 15 patients only 4 were still alive at the time of the report (1). Case series reports from major individual treatment centers are somewhat more positive but still dismal, Of a series of 449 patients treated over a 16-year period at UCSF, 22 (5%) survived five years or longer (2). Of these, ten were still alive at the time of last follow-up, with six showing no sign of progression after initial therapy. A case series of 213 GBM patients from George Washington University and surrounding treatment centers (3) reported that 33 (15%) survived three years or longer, but survival at the 5-year mark was not reported. A series of 766 GBM cases receiving treatment at Duke University included 32 patients (4%) who survived five years or longer, but this number was reduced to 17 patients upon further histological review (4). The most frequent basis of the change in diagnosis was an
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.005 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".