Cerebellopontine Angle (CPA) Tumors Presenting with Trigeminal Neuralgia (TN): A Study from LRH, Peshawar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objective: The cerebellopontine angle (CPA) is the most prevalent site for brain tumors, accounting for 10% of all cases. CPA tumors can have a direct or indirect pathogenic impact on the auditory nerve and brain stem. The study aimed to quantify the prevalence of cerebellopontine angle tumors in patients with trigeminal neuralgia. Material and Methods: A cross sections study was conducted and 100 patients were included from the Neurosurgery department of LRH, Peshawar. Magnetic resonance images (MRI) were used to look for CPA tumors. The data on CPA tumors were stratified for age and gender. Suboccipital retromastoid craniectomy was performed. Results: The mean age of the patients was 43 years. 38 patients were male and 62 were female. CPA tumors were seen in three percent of trigeminal neuralgia patients. There existed a significant difference (p < 0.00001) between the presence and absence of CPA tumors. A maximum number of patients (n = 37) were not having CPA tumors from the age group of 51-60 years. An insignificant association was reported for CPA distribution concerning age and gender. Conclusion: According to our findings, 3% of trigeminal neuralgia patients had cerebellopontine angle tumors. We urge more investigation and screening of trigeminal neuralgia patients for CPA tumors based on the findings of this study.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".