MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3163206889 · doi:10.1097/ana.0000000000000778

Brain Cancer Progression: A Retrospective Multicenter Comparison of Awake Craniotomy Versus General Anesthesia in High-grade Glioma Resection

2021· article· en· W3163206889 on OpenAlexaff
Tumul Chowdhury, Kristen D.R. Gray, Mohit Sharma, Christine Mau, Sarah McNutt, Casey Ryan, Noa Farou, Patrick Bergquist, Catherine Caldwell, Alberto Uribe, Alexandre B. Todeschini, Sergio D. Bergese, Oliver Bucher, Grace Musto, Emad Al Azazi, Gelareh Zadeh, Derek S. Tsang, Seyed Ali Mansouri, Saranya Kakumanu, Lashmi Venkatraghavan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurosurgical Anesthesiology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer, Stress, Anesthesia, and Immune Response
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoCancerCare ManitobaPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of ManitobaToronto Western Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInterquartile rangeCraniotomyHazard ratioPerioperativeGliomaSurgeryRetrospective cohort studyAnesthesiaCancerConfidence intervalInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: High-grade gliomas impose substantial morbidity and mortality due to rapid cancer progression and recurrence. Factors such as surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy remain the cornerstones for treatment of brain cancer and brain cancer research. The role of anesthetics on glioma progression is largely unknown. METHODS: This multicenter retrospective cohort study compared patients who underwent high-grade glioma resection with minimal sedation (awake craniotomy) and those who underwent craniotomy with general anesthesia (GA). Various perioperative factors, intraoperative and postoperative complications, and adjuvant treatment regimens were recorded. The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary outcomes were overall survival (OS), postoperative pain score, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: A total of 891 patients were included; 79% received GA, and 21% underwent awake craniotomy. There was no difference in median PFS between awake craniotomy (0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.45-0.65 y) and GA (0.53, 95% CI: 0.48-0.60 y) groups (hazard ratio 1.05; P <0.553). Median OS was significantly longer in the awake craniotomy (1.70, 95% CI: 1.30-2.32 y) compared with that in the GA (1.25, 95% CI: 1.15-1.37 y) group (hazard ratio 0.76; P <0.009) but this effect did not persist after controlling for other variables of interest. Median length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the awake craniotomy group (2 [range: 0 to 76], interquartile range 3 d vs. 5 [0 to 98], interquartile range 5 for awake craniotomy and GA groups, respectively; P <0.001). Pain scores were comparable between groups. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in PFS and OS between patients who underwent surgical resection of high-grade glioma with minimal sedation (awake craniotomy) or GA. Further large prospective randomized controlled studies are needed to explore the role of anesthetics on glioma progression and patient survival.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations19
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurosurgical AnesthesiologySame topicCancer, Stress, Anesthesia, and Immune ResponseFrench-language works237,207