MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010760427 · doi:10.1002/hed.21938

Successful treatment of anaplastic meningioma metastatic to cervical lymph nodes

2011· article· en· W2010760427 on OpenAlexaff
Sami P. Moubayed, Louis Guertin, Carole Lambert, Pascal Desrochers, Jade Nehmé, Geneviève Coulombe

Bibliographic record

VenueHead & Neck · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMeningioma and schwannoma management
Canadian institutionsCegep regional de LanaudiereCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalUniversité de MontréalHôpital Notre-Dame
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeningiomaRadiologyNeck dissectionLymph nodeBiopsyMetastasisRadiation therapyCervical lymph nodesLymphNeck massCervical lymphadenopathySurgeryDiseaseCancerPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cervical lymph node metastases of meningioma represent an important diagnostic and treatment challenge. Not only has this entity been rarely described, but successful treatment has never been reported in the literature. METHODS AND RESULTS: This case report was conducted using reviews of the literature. A 58-year-old man with a history of resected anaplastic meningioma was referred for a right neck mass. Excisional biopsy revealed metastatic meningioma, and a metastatic workup was negative. Modified radical neck dissection showed positivity in 5 lymph nodes. The patient received adjuvant intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), for a mean target dose of 60 Gray (Gy). Two years after treatment, the patient was disease free. Eleven cases of cervical lymph node metastasis of meningioma were identified in our literature search, and none described successful treatment of this entity. CONCLUSION: Cervical lymph node metastasis of anaplastic meningioma is potentially treatable with surgical resection and IMRT, although further studies with long-term follow-up are necessary.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHead & NeckSame topicMeningioma and schwannoma managementFrench-language works237,207