MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011450936 · doi:10.1055/s-0029-1220205

Acoustic Neuroma or Vestibular Schwannoma?

2009· article· en· W2011450936 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Art Dublin

Bibliographic record

VenueSkull base · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMeningioma and schwannoma management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSkullMedicineAnatomySchwannomaAcoustic neuromaNeuroradiologistAudiologyRadiologyMagnetic resonance imaging

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I, as a neuroradiologist and member of the NASBS, attended and enjoyed the recent combined gathering of the 19th Annual Meeting of the North American Skull Base Society and the 5th International Skull Base Congress of the World Federation of Skull Base Societies in Vancouver Canada. I never cease to be amazed by the skill of my surgical colleagues and their grasp of complex anatomy (why can't the various vascular and neuronal structures be color-coded like Netter, rather than a monotonous red tone?). I think it is important for neuroradiologists to attend such meetings to better appreciate the surgical approaches and applied anatomy of skull base neoplasms for improved image interpretation. However, as a former radio host once said, “words do have meaning.” Why then the constant reference to “acoustic neuromas,” when we all know these same tumors are not neuromas at all ( neuron , Greek for nerve, and oma , Greek for swelling), but tumors of Schwann cells, and thus schwannomas? Further, less than 5% of schwannomas of the internal auditory canal derive from the acoustic division, but rather overwhelmingly originate from either the superior or inferior vestibular nerves. The exact origin of these lesions, as described in the literature, is confusing, ranging from predominantly superior vestibular schwannomas to predominantly inferior vestibular schwannomas (see a good summary article by Komatsuzaki A and Tsunoda A, J Laryngol Otol, May 2001:376–379). Further, with thin section MR imaging, you can see schwannomas in their early stages arising from the individual divisions of cranial nerve eight. At any rate, you would more often be right than wrong when calling these lesions vestibular schwannomas. The neurosciences are not alone in such confusion of terms. Morton's neuroma of the foot is not a neuroma at all but a fibrous swelling about the interdigital nerves of the foot. Further, Louis Durlacher (a chiropodist to the Queen of England) was the first to describe this condition in 1845, 31 years before the publication of Thomas G. Morton, a physician in Philadelphia who somehow aced out Durlacher. Well, so much for head-to-toe neuroscience. I would appeal to future speakers, as well as publication authors, to embrace the proper terminology. Learning the complex anatomy of the skull base is tough enough for residents and fellows in neurosurgery, otolaryngology, and neuroradiology, without having to deal with confusing nomenclature. Finally, I am sure Theodor Schwann (1810–1882) would be pleased to hear the proper description of these lesions that bear his name.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.003

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations9
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSkull baseSame topicMeningioma and schwannoma managementFrench-language works237,207