Preferences and Utilities for Health States after Treatment of Olfactory Groove Meningioma: Endoscopic versus Open
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives The purpose of this study is to report health utility scores for patients with olfactory groove meningiomas (OGM) treated with either the standard transcranial approach, or the expanded endonasal endoscopic approach. Design The time trade-off technique was used to derive health utility scores. Setting Healthy individuals without skull base tumors were surveyed. Main Outcome Measures Participants reviewed and rated scenarios describing treatment (endoscopic, open, stereotactic radiation, watchful waiting), remission, recurrence, and complications associated with the management of OGMs. Results There were 51 participants. The endoscopic approach was associated with higher utility scores compared with an open craniotomy approach (0.88 vs. 0.74; p < 0.001) and watchful waiting (0.88 vs.0.74; p = 0.002). If recurrence occurred, revision endoscopic resection continued to have a higher utility score compared with revision open craniotomy (0.68; p = 0.008). On multivariate analysis, older individuals were more likely to opt for watchful waiting (p = 0.001), whereas participants from higher income brackets were more likely to rate stereotactic radiosurgery with higher utility scores (p = 0.017). Conclusion The endoscopic approach was associated with higher utility scores than craniotomy for primary and revision cases. The present utilities can be used for future cost-utility analyses.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".