Treatment for posterior fossa dissemination of primary supratentorial glioma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECT: This study was designed to assess the presentation, management, and outcome of cases involving patients who had a supratentorial glioma that subsequently progressed in the posterior fossa (PF). METHODS: The authors performed a retrospective chart review of adult patients treated between 1997 and 2005 for supratentorial gliomas that progressed in the PF. The 29 patients with PF progression in this study were relatively young (median age of 34 years at original presentation). Twenty of these patients presented with symptoms. The symptoms were typically nonspecific to this population, at times leading to delays in diagnosis. Overall, these symptoms resolved in eight patients (40%) and progressed or remained unchanged in 12 (60%). Patients treated with more than 5000 cGy of radiation administered to the PF were more likely to have symptom resolution than those who received any other form of treatment, including reduced doses of radiation (p = 0.004). The patients treated with higher doses also survived significantly longer after PF progression (univariate analysis, p = 0.01, and after adjusting for tumor grade, p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with PF progression of supratentorial infiltrative gliomas may benefit from treatment, and the authors recommend more than 5000 cGy of radiation to the PF if prior radiotherapy ports and doses allow.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".