Volumetric Measurement of Vestibular Schwannoma Tumour Growth Following Partial Resection: Predictors for Recurrence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vestibular schwannomas (VS) have a higher risk of recurrence following subtotal resection than following near-total resection. We measured tumor remnant growth volumetrically in an attempt to determine potential predictors for postoperative recurrence following subtotal resection. We reviewed the charts of patients who had undergone VS surgery between 1998 and 2007. Thirty patients had an incomplete resection. The principal outcome measure was change in tumor volume (TV) on serial imaging. At a median follow-up of 6.8 years, volumetric measurements showed that 12 patients (40%) developed further tumor growth, while 18 patients remained with stable residual disease. The median rate of growth was 0.53 cm(3)/year. Two-dimensional measurements confirmed growth in only eight of these patients. The postoperative residual TV correlated significantly with subsequent tumor growth (p = 0.038). All patients with residual volumes in excess of 2.5 cm(3) exhibited recurrence. On univariate analysis, only postoperative TV was significantly associated with growth. Median time to failure was 21.5 months. This is the first report of volumetric measurements of VS tumor growth postoperatively. Volumetric measurements appear to be superior to two-dimensional measurements in documenting VS growth and patients with residual tumors >2.5 cm(3) have a significantly higher rate of recurrence.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".