MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7135019677 · doi:10.1093/noajnl/vdaf179

TRK inhibitors in pediatric gliomas

2025· article· en· W7135019677 on OpenAlexaff
S. Perreault, François Doz

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology Advances · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrk receptorCentral nervous systemAdverse effectGeneFusion geneTropomyosin receptor kinase C

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The NTRK1, NTRK2, and NTRK3 genes encode the TRKA, TRKB, and TRKC receptors, critical for nervous system development. Gene fusions involving neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase (NTRK) are found in various cancers. In the pediatric population, NTRK gene fusions have been identified in up to 5.3% of high-grade gliomas (HGGs) and 2.5% of low-grade gliomas (LGGs). The prevalence is notably higher in young children, particularly in infantile hemispheric gliomas, where the fusion frequency is about 20%. Targeted therapies with TRK inhibitors (TRKi), including larotrectinib and entrectinib, have shown promising efficacy with rapid and durable responses for patients with LGGs and HGGs. TRKi are usually well tolerated, but on-target and off-target adverse events have been reported, such as increased AST/ALT, fatigue, decreased neutrophil, weight gain, and fractures with entrectinib. Resistance to TRKi arises from on-target mutations or new pathway activations, with second-generation inhibitors addressing some resistant cases. Despite efficacy, challenges remain in diagnosis, treatment access, and long-term safety, particularly regarding cognitive development and bone health. Overall, TRKi represent a significant advance for treating NTRK fusion-positive CNS tumors, especially in pediatric populations, offering new hope for patients with limited treatment options. Further studies are required to optimize their use and address unresolved challenges.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.446
Threshold uncertainty score0.514

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuro-Oncology AdvancesSame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207