MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036402555 · doi:10.3171/jns/2008/108/4/0649

Outpatient brain tumor surgery: innovation in surgical neurooncology

2008· article· en· W2036402555 on OpenAlexaff
Mel Boulton, Mark Bernstein

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of neurosurgery · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCraniotomyOutpatient surgerySurgeryBiopsyNeurooncologyOutpatient clinicBrain biopsyBrain tumorRadiologyAmbulatoryInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECT: Recent studies of conventional craniotomies and image-guided biopsies have afforded a solid characterization of surgical morbidity and the timing of its occurrence. This report outlines a novel 11-year experience with outpatient image-guided biopsy and outpatient craniotomy for supratentorial intraaxial brain tumors. METHODS: During the period between August 1996 and May 2007, 117 awake image-guided biopsies and 145 elective craniotomies for tumor resection were prospectively selected to be performed as outpatient procedures. Data were recorded for each patient regarding tumor histological type, reasons for admission if planned early discharge failed, and surgical complications. RESULTS: Successful discharge from the Day Surgery Unit was possible in 109 (93%) of 117 biopsy cases and 136 (94%) of 145 craniotomy cases (only 2 of which [1.5%] required unplanned readmission after discharge). Neurological worsening occurred in 5.1% of the patients who underwent image-guided biopsies, and in 5.5% of those who underwent outpatient craniotomies (based on intent-to-treat group analysis). No patient suffered an adverse event with alteration in outcome because of planned outpatient discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Outpatient image-guided brain biopsy and outpatient craniotomy for tumor resection are safe and effective procedures in selected patients.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 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

Citations102
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of neurosurgerySame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207