P.041 Adult craniopharyngioma: case series, systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The optimal therapeutic approach for adult craniopharyngioma remains controversial. Some advocate for gross total resection (GTR), while others support subtotal resection followed by adjuvant radiotherapy (STR + XRT). Methods: MEDLINE (1946 to July 1st 2016) and EMBASE (1980 to June 30th 2016) were systematically reviewed. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline was followed. At our institution, from 1975 to 2013, 33 patients were treated with initial surgical resection for adult onset craniopharyngioma. 22 patients were included in the present case series. Results: Eligible studies (n=21) were identified from the literature in addition to a case series of our institutional experience. Three groups were available for analysis: GTR, STR + XRT, and STR. The rates of recurrence were 17 %, 27 % and 45%, respectively. This differs from childhood population. The difference in risk of recurrence after GTR vs. STR + XRT did not reach significance (OR: 0.63, 95% confidence interval: 0.33-1.24, P=0.18). This maybe because of low pooled sample size (n=99) who underwent STR+XRT. Conclusions: This is the first and largest meta-analysis examining rate of recurrence in adult craniopharyngioma. Thus, when safe and feasible, a goal of gross total resection should be favored. Each patient should be considered on a case-by-case basis.
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 | 0.009 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".