Does the surgical resection of a brain metastasis alter the planning and subsequent local control achieved with radiosurgery prescribed for recurrence at the operated site?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multiple treatments may be used in the management of patients with brain metastases including surgical resection or radiosurgery. In order to determine whether initial surgical resection in any way prejudices the subsequent efficacy of radiosurgery for recurrence at the operated site, a retrospective review of patients undergoing radiosurgery at the time of relapse was undertaken. All patients had previously received whole brain irradiation as part of initial management. A comparison of radiosurgical planning technique was made for recurrent brain metastases occurring at sites of a previous surgical resection versus unresected recurrences. Although recurrences of tumour at a resected site were more likely to be treated radiosurgically using larger and multiple collimators, there was no significant difference in subsequent local control. Assuming that the recurrence of a brain metastasis at a previously resected site is considered treatable radiosurgically, subsequent local control is no different from that achieved in previously unresected recurrences.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it