Intracanalicular Vestibular Schwannoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Therapeutics Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis summarizing the current evidence on the management of intracanalicular vestibular schwannoma. DATA SOURCES: Embase (1947-), Medline (1946-), Cochrane library (1947-), Scopus (2010-), and CINAHL (1961-) were searched from 1969 to October 5, 2019 (50 years). STUDY SELECTION: A search strategy was performed to identify patients with vestibular schwannoma confined to the internal auditory canal without extension to the cerebellopontine angle. Studies with patients aged less than 18, Neurofibromatosis type 2, revision cases, and non-English language were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION: A standardized collection sheet was used for the extracted data and a quality assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale with the comparability criterion omitted. DATA SYNTHESIS: Seventy-one studies were included with 24 on observation, 14 on radiotherapy, and 34 on surgery. The primary outcome was serviceable hearing preservation. Secondary outcomes were preservation of facial nerve function, growth, involution, and dizziness. Sub-analysis on the type of surgery and type of radiotherapy were performed. Excel 2016 with MIX 2.0 Pro add-on package was used to analyze the data and create forest plots. Data were presented in proportion with a 95% confidence interval. CONCLUSIONS: Serviceable hearing was observed in 31% of patients after observation, 56% after radiotherapy, and 51% after surgical treatment with mean follow-up time of 4.04 years, 4.92 years, and 2.23 years, respectively. Facial nerve function was found to be best preserved in both observation and radiotherapy groups. Vestibular schwannoma growth occurred in 33% of patients under observation. Involution occurred in 2% of patients under observation and in 38% after radiotherapy.
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 | 0.018 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".