Neurofibromatosis Type 2 Vestibular Schwannoma Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Review the useful hearing preservation and tumor control outcomes of microsurgery (MS), stereotactic radiation (SR), conservative management (CM), and chemotherapy (ChT) for Neurofibromatosis type 2 vestibular schwannomas. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE was used to conduct a thorough search of English-language publications dating from 1948 to February 2013. STUDY SELECTION: Patients must have had useful hearing at diagnosis and treated with one of the 4 treatments as their primary therapy. All sporadic vestibular schwannoma cases were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION: A total of 19 articles were reviewed. Hearing preservation was defined as unchanged or improved useful hearing. Tumor control was defined as no change in size or tumor regression for SR, CM, and ChT-treated cases, and as no recurrence for MS treated cases. CONCLUSION: Microsurgery seems to have the worse overall results, while SR has very good tumor control with poor useful hearing preservation. If a patient qualifies for CM, he is likely to show the most satisfactory results with the least treatment available. A close follow-up on ChT clinical trials and possible side-effects is warranted as preliminary short-term results are quite favorable. Additional long-term studies are required for a better understanding of this disease.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".