Predictive Ability of Direct Electrical Stimulation on Facial Nerve Function Following Vestibular Schwannoma Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Facial nerve preservation is critical in vestibular schwannoma (VS) surgery. Direct electrical stimulation (DES) is a widely used method for intraoperative localization of the facial nerve and assessment of nerve integrity. We sought to assess the predictive ability of DES parameters on facial nerve function post-VS surgery. DATABASES REVIEWED: A systematic literature search of English-language studies published from 1946 to 2019 was undertaken using EMBASE, MedLine/PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. METHODS: Included studies involved patients undergoing VS surgery and assessed predictive ability of any DES parameter on postoperative facial function. Two authors independently reviewed studies and extracted data. Meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy of DES parameters was used to calculate pooled sensitivities and specificities of common cutoffs. For DES parameters reported by less than four studies, outcomes were reported descriptively. RESULTS: A MST cutoff of 0.10 mA had sensitivity of 0.76 (95% CI 0.53-0.90) and specificity 0.68 (95% CI 0.42-0.87) for facial function in the long term, and MST 0.05 mA had sensitivity 0.73 (95% CI 0.58-0.84) and specificity 0.74 (95% CI 0.59-0.85). CMAP amplitude < 500 μV had sensitivity of 0.87 (95% CI 0.78-0.93) for poor short-term facial function. CONCLUSIONS: A CMAP amplitude response < 500 μV is sensitive for poor short-term facial function, whereas MST values of 0.05 mA and 0.10 mA are both sensitive and specific in the long term. Other DES parameters may be able to accurately predict both short- and long-term postoperative facial function, but have been less studied.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".