Clinical Surveillance Compared with Clinical and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Surveillance for Brain Metastasis: A Feasibility Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: After stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for brain metastases, patients are routinely monitored with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The high rate of new brain metastases after SRS treatment alone might not be as concerning with modern MRI and target localization treatment. Intensive surveillance might induce anxiety, lowering the patient’s quality of life (QOL). The present work is the feasibility component of a prospective study evaluating the role of surveillance MRI on QOL in patients with limited (1–3) brain metastases. Methods: Patients with limited brain metastases treated with SRS alone, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or less, and documented stability in treated lesions, with no new lesions seen on MRI at weeks 6–10 after SRS, were eligible. All were asked about their interest in participating in the control (MRI and clinical surveillance) or the experimental arm (symptom-directed MRI and clinical surveillance). If 33% or more agreed to participate in the experimental arm, it would be considered feasible to conduct the prospective study. Results: From November 2014 to July 2015, 45% of patients (10 of 22) agreed to participate in the experimental arm. Subgroup analyses found that the decision to participate has no statistically significant association with time of presentation (p = 0.696), display of symptoms (p = 0.840), age (p = 0.135), or number of lesions (p = 0.171). Conclusions: Results show that it is feasible to conduct the prospective cohort study. Because of the small sample size, we are limited in the conclusions able to be drawn in the subgroup analyses. However, the future study would allow for a better understanding of the attitudes of patients toward mri and its effect on qol.
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 | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".