Suitability of Suprasellar Meningiomas for Endoscopic Endonasal Surgery: Anatomy and Surgical Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The treatment of perisellar meningioma intracranial tumors has remained a challenge over the past several decades, mainly attributed to the high risk of visual pathway involvement and vascular encasement. Surgical approaches have remained the mainstay of definitive treatment, but the extended endoscopic transphenoidal surgery is emerging as an alternative option for treatment of these lesions. Endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery provides wider access to the anterior skull base when compared with the classical microscopic transsphenoidal approach, and technological advances such as angled endoscopes and image guidance have extended the success rates of this approach. Most authors however agree that only certain tumors would be appropriate for this treatment option, which causes an obvious selection bias. There are a limited number of studies investigating perisellar meningiomas because of the low incidence of the lesion. This is a retrospective review of perisellar meningiomas that were operated on by Dr. R. Akagami at Vancouver General Hospital between 2001 and 2013 with an open craniotomy approach but may have been appropriate for an endoscopic treatment. Our aim is to have those patients who may have been candidates for endoscopic surgery identified based on radiographic tumor characteristics, and then compared against those patients who had perisellar meningiomas with anatomy not suitable for endoscopic 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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".