MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2593339729

Treatment of Cystic Craniopharyngioma with Intracystic Stereotactic Instillation of Phosphorus 32.

2017· article· en· W2593339729 on OpenAlexaff
Sohrab Shahzadi, Ahmad Soltani, Andia Shahzadi, Khosrow Parsa

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPituitary Gland Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCraniopharyngiomaMedicineCystSurgeryRadiation therapy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Cystic craniopharyngiomas are considered the most common intracranial nonglial tumor in children with the tendency for cyst formations. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of intracystic phosphorus 32 (P32) therapies on controlling the growth of the cystic component of craniopharyngioma. MATERIALS & METHODS: This clinical study was conducted on 47 patients with cystic craniopharyngioma from March 1998 to June 2012 at Shohada Tajrish Hospital, Tehran, Iran. Patients were treated with stereotactic intracystic P32. The mean cyst volume was 23.5 ml, and the dose of radiation to the inner cyst wall was 250 Gy. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 78.1% and the mean survival was 113.1±11months. The survival rate at 1, 3, 5, and 10 years after p32 therapy was 91%, 77%, 73%, and 52%, respectively. There was no mortality related to the procedure and no visual or endocrinal deterioration. Visual improvement occurred in 88% of patients presented with recent deterioration due to the cyst enlargement. CONCLUSION: Intracystic p32 therapy was an effective and almost safe procedure for the treatment of cystic component of craniopharyngioma.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicPituitary Gland Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207