MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2346818784 · doi:10.1111/coa.12670

The behaviour of residual tumour after the intentional incomplete excision of a vestibular schwannoma: is it such a bad thing to leave some behind?

2016· article· en· W2346818784 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Otolaryngology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMeningioma and schwannoma management
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryFacial nerveSchwannomaVestibular systemNeurotologyRetrospective cohort studyResectionOtorhinolaryngologyRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives To evaluate the biological behaviour of tumour remnants intentionally left in the surgical bed following the incomplete excision of vestibular schwannomas (VS) and to review the relation between extent of resection and preservation of facial nerve function. Methods A retrospective chart review of 450 patients who underwent surgery for resection of VS over 23 years (1992–2014). Of these, 50 (11%) patients had residual tumour intentionally left on/around the facial nerve (near‐total or subtotal excision) to preserve facial nerve function intra‐operatively. The growth of residual tumour was evaluated using serial magnetic resonance imaging scanning; pre‐ and postoperative facial nerve function was assessed using the House‐Brackmann grading scale. Setting Tertiary referral neurotology unit. Results Of the 42 non‐NF2 cases where the tumour was intentionally incompletely excised, 28 (67%) patients underwent subtotal resection (mean follow‐up 68.5 ± 39.0 months) and 14 (33%) underwent near‐total resection (mean follow‐up 72.9 ± 48.3 months). Three patients (all in subtotal resection group) showed regrowth. This was not statistically different from the near‐total resection group ( χ 2 = 0.92, P = 0.31). The mean overall growth for these cases was 0.68 mm ± 0.32 mm/year. 5 (one near total, four subtotal) of the eight NF2 patients (62.5%) were excluded from our analysis. In the non‐NF2 group, poor facial nerve outcomes (House‐Brackmann scores of III ‐ IV ) were seen in 2/14 and V‐ VI in 3/14 of the near total compared with 7/25 and 4/25 respectively in the subtotal group. Conclusions Given that the primary surgery for the VS was only for tumours that were relatively large or grew during conservative treatment, the low rate of tumour remnant growth (7%) is reassuring. It may be appropriate to have a lower threshold for leaving tumour on the facial nerve in non‐NF2 patients where complete resection may jeopardise facial nerve function.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.410

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.308 · 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