Microsurgery Versus Stereotactic Radiation for Small Vestibular Schwannomas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the long-term outcome of hearing and tumor outcome of small vestibular schwannomas treated with stereotactic radiation and microsurgery. DATA SOURCES: A thorough search for English-language publications and "in process" articles dating from 1948 to December 2011 was conducted using Ovid MEDLINE. STUDY SELECTION: The principal criteria were patients having had microsurgery or radiation therapy as their sole treatment, with a follow-up of at least 5 years, and a useful hearing level at diagnosis. DATA EXTRACTION: Sixteen studies met our criteria. Hearing preservation outcome (worse or preserved) and tumor outcome (failure, control) data, as well as all other significant observations, were collected from the articles. Stereotactic radiation was the only radiation therapy analyzed. DATA SYNTHESIS: The Pearson χ test was our primary statistical analysis. CONCLUSION: Stereotactic radiation showed significantly better long-term hearing preservation outcome rates than microsurgery (p < 0.001). However, long-term tumor outcome was not significantly different in stereotactic radiation as compared with microsurgery (p = 0.122). Although stereotactic radiation demonstrates a more favorable long-term hearing preservation outcome as compared with microsurgery, additional studies are required to provide the medical field with a better understanding of vestibular schwannoma treatment.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".