Consequences to Hearing During the Conservative Management of Vestibular Schwannomas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the risk of loss of serviceable hearing during the conservative management of vestibular schwannomas. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case review. METHODS: Twenty-five patients with a radiological diagnosis of unilateral vestibular schwannoma were managed conservatively for a mean duration of 43.8 months (range, 12-194 mo). The pure-tone average (PTA) (0.5, 1, 2, and 3 kHz) and speech discrimination scores (SDS) were measured at regular intervals throughout the entire duration of follow-up. Serviceable hearing was defined using two criteria: 70% SDS/30 dB PTA (the 70/30 rule) and 50% SDS/50 dB PTA (the 50/50 rule). The size and growth rate of tumors were determined according to the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery guidelines (1995). Intervention was recommended if there was evidence of continuous or rapid radiological tumor growth, and/or increasing symptoms or signs suggestive of tumor growth. RESULTS: The risk of loss of serviceable hearing for the total group was 43% using the 70/30 rule and 42% using the 50/50 rule. Tumor growth was considered significant (> 1 mm) in 8 tumors (32%) and nonsignificant in 17 (68%). The risk of loss of serviceable hearing for the tumor-growth group was 67% using the 70/30 rule and 80% using the 50/50 rule. In contrast, the risk of loss of serviceable hearing for the no tumor-growth group was 25% using the 70/30 rule and 14% using the 50/50 rule. No audiological factors predictive of tumor growth were identified. CONCLUSIONS: There is a significant risk of loss of serviceable hearing during the conservative management of vestibular schwannomas. This risk appears to be greater in tumors that demonstrate significant growth.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".