MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123174928 · doi:10.1136/bjo.2009.166793

Primary radiotherapy in progressive optic nerve sheath meningiomas: a long-term follow-up study

2010· article· en· W2123174928 on OpenAlexaff
Peerooz Saeed, L. Blank, Dinesh Selva, J. G. Wolbers, Peter J.C.M. Nowak, Ronald B. Geskus, Ezekiel Weis, Maarten P. Mourits, Jack Rootman

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Ophthalmology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMeningioma and schwannoma management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouver General HospitalUniversity of Alberta
FundersRoyal Adelaide Hospital
KeywordsMedicineVisual acuityRadiation therapyCataractsOptic nerveOptic neuropathyOphthalmologySurgerySnellen chartOptic discGlaucoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND/AIMS To report the outcome of primary radiotherapy in patients with progressive optic nerve sheath meningioma (ONSM). METHODS The clinical records of all patients were reviewed in a retrospective, observational, multicentre study. RESULTS Thirty-four consecutive patients were included. Twenty-six women and eight men received conventional or stereotactic fractionated radiotherapy, and were followed for a median 58 (range 51-156) months. Fourteen eyes (41%) showed improved visual acuity of at least two lines on the Snellen chart. In 17 (50%) eyes, the vision stabilised, while deterioration was noted in three eyes (9%). The visual outcome was not associated with age at the time of radiotherapy (p=0.83), sex (p=0.43), visual acuity at the time of presentation (p=0.22) or type of radiotherapy (p=0.35). Optic disc swelling was associated with improved visual acuity (p<0.01) and 4/11 patients with optic atrophy also showed improvement. Long-term complications were dry eyes in five patients, cataracts in three, and mild radiation retinopathy in four. CONCLUSION Primary radiotherapy for patients with ONSM is associated with long-term improvement of visual acuity and few adverse effects.

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)0.001
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: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score0.932

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.310
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations67
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of OphthalmologySame topicMeningioma and schwannoma managementFrench-language works237,207