Imaging and diagnostic advances for intracranial meningiomas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The archetypal imaging characteristics of meningiomas are among the most stereotypic of all central nervous system (CNS) tumors. In the era of plain film and ventriculography, imaging was only performed if a mass was suspected, and their results were more suggestive than definitive. Following more than a century of technological development, we can now rely on imaging to non-invasively diagnose meningioma with great confidence and precisely delineate the locations of these tumors relative to their surrounding structures to inform treatment planning. Asymptomatic meningiomas may be identified and their growth monitored over time; moreover, imaging routinely serves as an essential tool to survey tumor burden at various stages during the course of treatment, thereby providing guidance on their effectiveness or the need for further intervention. Modern radiological techniques are expanding the power of imaging from tumor detection and monitoring to include extraction of biologic information from advanced analysis of radiological parameters. These contemporary approaches have led to promising attempts to predict tumor grade and, in turn, contribute prognostic data. In this supplement article, we review important current and future aspects of imaging in the diagnosis and management of meningioma, including conventional and advanced imaging techniques using CT, MRI, and nuclear medicine.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".