Systematic review of treatment and prognosis of sinonasal hemangiopericytoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study was undertaken to determine the recurrence rate for open and endoscopic surgery and the clinical prognosis of this sinonasal tumor. METHODS: A systematic review of individual cases of sinonasal hemangiopericytoma was performed. A total of 97 articles were included in the study and reviewed to extract the relevant information about each case. RESULTS: In all, 194 cases of sinonasal hemangiopericytoma were identified. There were 53 recurrences (27.3%), 6 tumor-related deaths (3.1%), and 4 cases of metastases (2.1%). There was no significant difference between rate of recurrence for endoscopic or open resection (p = .06). Incomplete excision was the most important predictor of recurrence (odds ratio = 11.50, 95% confidence interval 3.76-36.82, p < .001). Radiotherapy may be advantageous in cases of incomplete surgical resection (p = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Complete excision is essential to minimize tumor recurrence and radiotherapy may decrease the rate of recurrence in the case of incomplete resection. Current evidence does not suggest that open resection is superior to endoscopic resection.
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 | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".