MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2563833909 · doi:10.4103/2152-7806.195563

Proceedings of the WFNS Neuro-Oncology Committee Workshop Rome 2015

2016· editorial· en· W2563833909 on OpenAlexaff
Karolyn Au, Zvi Ram, Gelareh Zadeh

Bibliographic record

VenueSurgical Neurology International · 2016
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreToronto Western HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMedical educationMedical physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vestibular schwannoma: Radiosurgery, surgery or wait and scan?Quality of life, symptoms and resultsThe optimal treatment of small vestibular schwannomas (VS) remains a matter of controversy, and a significant volume of literature has been published on the outcome of various management approaches.Before the factors that predict outcome can be determined, however, the question of what outcome is sought must first be answered.Many endpoints have been measured for VS, and modern techniques achieve high levels of facial nerve function and tumor control, however, recent studies indicate that symptoms such as vertigo and tinnitus may be extremely troublesome to patients and are relatively underemphasized.Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) considerations emphasize overall level of function and the pursuit of valued life goals, and data on the impact of VS management on QOL is now emerging.A prospective, observational study of 193 patients evaluating the effect of conservative management on tumor growth, symptoms, and QOL found that 41% required treatment within 5 years, and that vertigo significantly reduced QOL.In a comparison of 113 patients given Gamma Knife radiosurgery (RS), with 124 patients allotted to conservative management, tumor size and growth rate were significantly reduced and the rate of new treatment was lower in the RS group, whereas hearing loss, symptoms, and QOL were not different.These studies used the Short Form-36 (SF-36) QOL instrument, which may be limited by lack of specificity for fluctuations attributable to symptoms.Comparison of 82 patients receiving microsurgery or RS found more facial nerve and hearing preservation in the RS group, as well as better scores on the Health Status Questionnaire (HSQ) and Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI).Another prospective series of 91 patients comparing microsurgery and RS found no difference in SF-36 scores and significantly better Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI) scores for the RS group.

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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.185

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0550.021

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSurgical Neurology InternationalSame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207