MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224951279 · doi:10.1080/02688697.2022.2064425

Stereotactic radiosurgery for cerebellopontine meningiomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2022· review· en· W4224951279 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Neurosurgery · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMeningioma and schwannoma management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCerebellopontine angleRadiosurgeryCochrane LibraryMeningiomaRadiologySurgeryPopulationRadiation therapyRandomized controlled trialMagnetic resonance imaging

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To (1) measure surgical outcomes associated with stereotactic radiosurgery treatment of cerebellopontine angle meningiomas, and (2) determine if differences in radiation dosages or preoperative tumor volumes affect surgical outcomes.Methods A systematic search was performed on the PubMed, Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library databases searching for patients under stereotactic radiosurgery for meningiomas of the cerebellopontine angle. After data extraction and Newcastle-Ottawa scale quality assessment, meta-analysis of the data was performed with Review Manager 3.4.5.Results In total, 6 studies including 406 patients were included. Postprocedure, patients had minimal cranial nerve complications while having an overall tumor control rate of 95.6%. Complications were minimal with facial nerve deficits occurring in 2.4%, sensation deficits of the trigeminal nerve in 4.0%, hearing loss in 5.9%, hydrocephalus in 2.0% and diplopia in 2.6% of all patients. Individuals with tumors extending into the internal auditory canal extension did not have significantly increases in hearing loss. There was a higher likelihood of tumor regression on postprocedure imaging in studies with a median prescription dose of >13 Gy (RR 1.27 [95% CI 1.04–1.56, p = 0.0225). There was no evidence of publication bias detected.Conclusions Radiosurgery is an effective modality for offering excellent tumor control of CPA meningiomas while allowing for only minimal complications postprocedure. A higher prescription dose may achieve higher tumor regression at follow up. Future studies should aim at establishing and optimizing accurate dosimetric guidelines for this patient population.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.708
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.013
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.207 · 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