MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090732587 · doi:10.3171/foc.2006.20.4.10

Image-guided resection of high-grade glioma: patient selection factors and outcome

2006· article· en· W2090732587 on OpenAlexfundno aff
N. Scott Litofsky, Andrew M. Bauer, Rachel Kasper, Cynthia M. Sullivan, Omar Dabbous

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurosurgical FOCUS · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterUniversity of California, San FranciscoUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignMassachusetts General HospitalUniversity of TorontoJohns Hopkins UniversityNational Institutes of HealthWayne State UniversityUniversity of Missouri
KeywordsGliomaMedicineMultivariate analysisUnivariate analysisLogistic regressionSurgeryRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECT: In patients with glioma, image-guided surgery helps to define the radiographic limits of the tumor to maximize safety and the extent of resection while minimizing damage to eloquent brain tissue. The authors hypothesize that image-guided resection (IGR) techniques are associated with improved outcomes in patients with malignant glioma. METHODS: Data recorded in 486 patients enrolled in the Glioma Outcomes Project were analyzed in this study. Demographic data and outcomes in patients who underwent IGR were compared with those in patients who underwent resection without IGR. Univariate analysis performed with chi-square testing was used to compare patient presentation, tumor characteristics, and death rates. Multivariate logistic regression was used to predict various outcome parameters. Patients who underwent IGR were younger and had smaller, lower-grade tumors than those in whom IGR was not performed. They were more likely to present with seizure and normal consciousness. Unexpectedly, gross-total resection was performed in significantly fewer patients with IGR than in individuals without IGR. Patients with IGR were more likely to be discharged home with the ability to live independently, and they had a shorter duration of hospital stay than patients without IGR. Survival was significantly longer in patients who underwent IGR, but multivariate analysis showed that glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) and age accounted for these observations. CONCLUSIONS: Selection bias occurs regarding patients who receive IGR; these biases include younger age, presentation with seizure and normal level of consciousness, tumor diameter less than 4 cm, and non-GBM on histopathological studies. Outcome appears to be improved in patients who undergo IGRs of high-grade gliomas. It is unclear if these improved outcomes are due to the selection of a more favorable patient population or to the IGR techniques themselves. It is likely that the full potential of image guidance in glioma surgery will not be realized until it is applied to a wider range of patients.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.133
Threshold uncertainty score0.450

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations45
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurosurgical FOCUSSame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207