Patient-evaluated Outcome after Surgery for Basal Meningiomas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To study the outcomes of patients with basal meningiomas treated by one primary surgeon with a philosophy of aggressive surgical management to establish an index of satisfaction and patient-evaluated outcome. METHODS: We collected prospective data for patients with basal meningiomas who were operated on by one primary surgeon (LNS) during a 7-year period from 1993 to 2000. The outcomes in 269 patients were ascertained through follow-up visits, mailed follow-up questionnaires, and telephone interviews by two other surgeons (RA and MN). The mean patient age was 50 +/- 13.6 years. The mean estimated tumor diameter was 3.07 +/- 1.24 cm. There were 62 males and 207 females. Mean follow-up was 49 +/- 26 months. Twenty-seven percent of patients were Levine-Sekhar (LS) Grade 0, 43% were LS Grade I, 24% were LS Grade II, and 6% were LS Grade III. Gross total resection was achieved in 66% of patients. Extent of resection correlated (P < 0.05) with LS grade. Thirty-seven patients received adjuvant treatments, and six patients required reoperations. Perioperative mortality was 1.1%. Eighty percent of patients were discharged home, 17% were discharged to rehabilitation facilities, and 1.5% were discharged to nursing homes. Postoperative complications were observed in 30% of patients. RESULTS: During the follow-up study, of a total of 269 patients, 30 patients could not be contacted, and 11 patients had died of unrelated causes. The mean follow-up Karnofsky Performance Scale score of the patients was 83 +/- 10. Ninety-seven percent of patients were very satisfied/satisfied with their treatments (P < 0.001). Forty-three percent of patients were employed, and 83% of patients were employable. Their expectations of treatment were met in 90% of patients (P < 0.001), 95% thought surgery had been a good treatment choice (P < 0.001), and 95% would recommend the same treatment for a family member (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate that patient satisfaction can remain high and satisfactory outcome can be achieved with surgical management in patients with these complex lesions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 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".