MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2325729627 · doi:10.1017/s0317167100014281

Gamma Knife Radiosurgery for Large Vestibular Schwannomas: A Canadian Experience

2013· article· en· W2325729627 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Frederick A. Zeiler, Mark Bigder, Anthony M. Kaufmann, Patrick J. McDonald, Derek Fewer, James Butler, G. Schroeder, Michaline West

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMeningioma and schwannoma management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRadiosurgeryFacial nerveSurgeryComplicationGamma knifeCohortRetrospective cohort studyRadiation therapyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECT: To review our institutional experience with Gamma Knife (GK) stereotactic radiosurgery in treating large vestibular schwannomas (VS) of 3 to 4 cm diameter. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort review of all patients treated with GK for VS at our institution between November 2003 and March 2012. Data on age, sex, VS volume, location and maximal diameter, House-Brackmann (HB) facial nerve scores pre and post-GK, Gardner-Robertson (GR) hearing score pre and post-GK, GK treatment parameters, VS response time, complications and clinical outcome was recorded RESULTS: A total of 28 patients during the defined time period were identified. Three patients were lost to follow-up. Mean follow-up was 34.5 months. Tumor control occurred in 92%, and was maintained in 85.7% at two years. Facial nerve or hearing preservation occurred in all treated compared to pre-GK status, as per HB and GR grading. Transient complications occurred in 80%. Temporary vestibular dysfunction occurred in seven patients (28%). One patient (4%) had the permanent complication of worsening pre-GK hemifacial spasm. Four patients (16%) developed hydrocephalus post-GK. CONCLUSION: GK stereotactic radiosurgery as a primary treatment modality for large VS can provide acceptable tumor control rates with good facial nerve and hearing preservation, and low complication rates.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.695
Threshold uncertainty score0.606

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations26
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences NeurologiquesSame topicMeningioma and schwannoma managementFrench-language works237,207