Prospective comparison of quality of life before and after observation, radiation, or surgery for vestibular schwannomas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECT: The best management strategy for small-to medium-sized vestibular schwannomas (VSs) remains controversial between observation, radiation, and microsurgical resection (surgery). The authors undertook a prospective observational cohort study comparing all 3 therapeutic modalities in patients with VSs, focusing on quality of life (QOL) outcomes. METHODS: All patients in the study completed the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey at regular intervals, with a mean follow-up of 31.8 months. Two hundred five (77.7%) of 264 patients completed questionnaires, including 47 who underwent observation, 48 who received either linear accelerator radiosurgery or fractionated radiotherapy (radiation group), and 134 who underwent surgery (of whom 37 had tumors > 3 cm in diameter). Patients allocated to the observation group had smaller tumors than those in the other groups (mean 1.3 cm; p < 0.001). Patients who received radiation were older than patients in the other groups (mean 60.0 years; p < 0.001). RESULTS: There were no baseline QOL differences between the observation, radiation, and surgery (tumors 3 cm, there was an early improvement in composite mental dimension at 1.5 months, as well as at 24 months; total score and composite physical dimension were improved at 24 months in this group as well. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the current management protocol, patients with VSs enjoy similar QOL throughout the follow-up period after undergoing observation, radiation therapy, or surgery.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".