ReviewBrain tumor pathology2023
An enduring debate on gliomatosis cerebri.
Review in Brain tumor pathology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- The role of chemotherapy in patients with gliomatosis cerebri: a population-based study.Neurosurgical review · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Gliomatosis cerebri (GC) is a unique glial tumor that extensively invades the cerebral white matter and has been recognized as an entity of neuroepithelial tumors since the first edition of the WHO classification of brain tumors in 1979. Thereafter, in the fourth edition of the WHO classification in 2007, it was clearly defined as a specific type of astrocytic tumor. However, in the WHO 2016 classification, which was based on the concept of integrated diagnosis using molecular genetics, GC was deleted as it was considered to be only one growth pattern of diffuse glioma and not a specific pathological entity. Since then, there has been criticism by many neuro-oncologists and the establishment of the GC working group at the NIH, and many activities in the world arguing that GC should not be deleted from the clinical discussion of brain tumors. In Japan, positive activities toward multicenter research on GC pathology should be performed, and molecular pathological evidence that can contribute to the WHO classification in the future should be developed. In this article, the author outlined the pathological characteristics of GC, which has been repeated changing since its conception, and also describes his opinion on GC as a neuro-oncologist.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.