MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089640963 · doi:10.1093/neuonc/nou349

Biopsy versus partial versus gross total resection in older patients with high-grade glioma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2015· review· en· W2089640963 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of TorontoDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConfidence intervalMeta-analysisGliomaRelative riskInternal medicineBiopsyResectionSurgeryCohortCohort studyGastroenterology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Optimal extent of surgical resection (EOR) of high-grade gliomas (HGGs) remains uncertain in the elderly given the unclear benefits and potentially higher rates of mortality and morbidity associated with more extensive degrees of resection. METHODS: We undertook a meta-analysis according to a predefined protocol and systematically searched literature databases for reports about HGG EOR. Elderly patients (≥60 y) undergoing biopsy, subtotal resection (STR), and gross total resection (GTR) were compared for the outcome measures of overall survival (OS), postoperative karnofsky performance status (KPS), progression-free survival (PFS), mortality, and morbidity. Treatment effects as pooled estimates, mean differences (MDs), or risk ratios (RRs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were determined using random effects modeling. RESULTS: A total of 12 607 participants from 34 studies met eligibility criteria, including our current cohort of 211 patients. When comparing overall resection (of any extent) with biopsy, in favor of the resection group were OS (MD 3.88 mo, 95% CI: 2.14-5.62, P < .001), postoperative KPS (MD 10.4, 95% CI: 6.58-14.22, P < .001), PFS (MD 2.44 mo, 95% CI: 1.45-3.43, P < .001), mortality (RR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.12-0.61, P = .002), and morbidity (RR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.46-1.46, P = .514) . GTR was significantly superior to STR in terms of OS (MD 3.77 mo, 95% CI: 2.26-5.29, P < .001), postoperative KPS (MD 4.91, 95% CI: 0.91-8.92, P = .016), and PFS (MD 2.21 mo, 95% CI: 1.13-3.3, P < .001) with no difference in mortality (RR = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.05-5.71, P = .600) or morbidity (RR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.18-1.49, P = .223). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest an upward improvement in survival time, functional recovery, and tumor recurrence rate associated with increasing extents of safe resection. These benefits did not result in higher rates of mortality or morbidity if considered in conjunction with known established safety measures when managing elderly patients harboring HGGs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.705
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.279 · 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