Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Preoperative Planning in Brain Tumour Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is being increasingly used for the preoperative evaluation of patients with brain tumours. METHODS: The study is a retrospective chart review investigating the use of clinical fMRI from 2002 through 2013 in the preoperative evaluation of brain tumour patients. Baseline demographic and clinical data were collected. The specific fMRI protocols used for each patient were recorded. RESULTS: Sixty patients were identified over the 12-year period. The tumour types most commonly investigated were high-grade glioma (World Health Organization grade III or IV), low-grade glioma (World Health Organization grade II), and meningioma. Most common presenting symptoms were seizures (69.6%), language deficits (23.2%), and headache (19.6%). There was a predominance of left hemispheric lesions investigated with fMRI (76.8% vs 23.2% for right). The most commonly involved lobes were frontal (64.3%), temporal (33.9%), parietal (21.4%), and insular (7.1%). The most common fMRI paradigms were language (83.9%), motor (75.0%), sensory (16.1%), and memory (10.7%). The majority of patients ultimately underwent a craniotomy (75.0%), whereas smaller groups underwent stereotactic biopsy (8.9%) and nonsurgical management (16.1%). Time from request for fMRI to actual fMRI acquisition was 3.1±2.3 weeks. Time from fMRI acquisition to intervention was 4.9±5.5 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: We have characterized patient demographics in a retrospective single-surgeon cohort undergoing preoperative clinical fMRI at a Canadian centre. Our experience suggests an acceptable wait time from scan request to scan completion/analysis and from scan to intervention.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".