Conservative management of vestibular schwannomas: third review of a 10‐year prospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Seventy-two patients with a unilateral vestibular schwannoma have been treated conservatively for a median of 121 months. They have been followed prospectively by serial clinical examination, MRI scans and audiometry. Twenty-five patients (35%, 95% CI: 24-47) failed conservative management and required active intervention during the study. No factors predictive of tumour growth or failure of conservative management could be identified. Seventy-five per cent of failures occurred in the first half of the 10-year study. The median growth rate for all tumours at 10 years was 1 mm/year (range -0.53-7.84). Cerebellopontine angle tumours grew faster (1.4 mm/year) than intracanalicular tumours (0 mm/year, P < 0.01); 92% had growth rates under 2 mm/year. Hearing deteriorated substantially even in tumours that did not grow, but did so faster in tumours that grew significantly (mean deterioration in pure tone average at 0.5, 1, 2 and 3 kHz was 36 dB; speech discrimination scores deteriorated by 40%). Patients who failed conservative management had clinical outcomes that were not different from those who underwent primary treatment without a period of conservative management.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".