A Comparison of Postoperative MRI Changes between Endoscopic Endonasal and Open Approaches for Olfactory Groove Meningiomas: A Match Paired Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective : Olfactory groove meningiomas may be associated with significant brain edema and surgical removal of these tumors may be associated with further injury to the frontal lobes. Endonasal access avoids frontal lobe manipulation, but little objective benefit has been demonstrated. Study Design : Retrospective case-cohort matched pair analysis. Methods : A retrospective review was performed at two institutions to identify patients who had either endonasal or open approach for resection of olfactory groove meningiomas. A matched pair analysis was performed and tumor volume, edema, FLAIR change, and porencephalic cave were volumetrically quantified. Results : Ten matched pairs (20 patients) were identified. The open approach was associated with more postoperative FLAIR change on MRI compared with the endoscopic approach although not statistically significant (13.3 cm 3 [SD = 12.0] vs. 6.9 cm 3 [SD = 10.0], p = 0.17). The endoscopic approach was also associated with smaller porencephalic cave volumes (1.7 cm 3 [SD=2.8] vs. 6.9 cm 3 [SD = 10.0), p = 0.058). In a multivariable model, the endoscopic approach was associated with less postoperative FLAIR change ( p = 0.016) and smaller porencephalic cave volumes ( p = 0.028). Conclusions : This study provides preliminary evidence that the endoscopic endonasal approach is associated with quantifiable improvements in postoperative brain imaging. Further studies including neurocognitive function are needed to confirm the significance of these findings.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".