MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311896022 · doi:10.1227/ons.0000000000000456

Residual and Recurrent Spinal Cord Cavernous Malformations: Outcomes and Techniques to Optimize Resection and a Systematic Review of the Literature

2022· review· en· W4311896022 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOperative Neurosurgery · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVascular Malformations Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCavernous malformationsResectionSpinal cordResidualMEDLINESurgeryLesion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Intramedullary spinal cord cavernous malformations (SCCMs) account for only 5% of overall cavernous malformations (CMs). The occurrence of recurrent or residual SCCMs has not been well discussed, nor have the technical nuances of resection. OBJECTIVE: To assess the characteristics of residual SCCMs and surgical outcomes and describe the techniques to avoid leaving lesion remnants during primary resection. METHODS: Demographic, radiologic, intraoperative findings and surgical outcomes data for a cohort of surgically managed intramedullary SCCMs were obtained from an institutional database and retrospectively analyzed. A systematic literature review was performed using PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS: Of 146 SCCM resections identified, 17 were for residual lesions (12%). Patients with residuals included 13 men and 4 women, with a mean age of 43 years (range 16-70). All patients with residual SCCMs had symptomatic presentations: sensory deficits, paraparesis, spasticity, and pain. Residuals occurred between 3 and 264 months after initial resection. Approaches for 136 cases included posterior midline myelotomy (28.7%, n = 39), pial surface entry (37.5%, n = 51), dorsal root entry zone (27.9%, n = 38), and lateral entry (5.9%, n = 8). Follow-up outcomes were similar for patients with primary and residual lesions, with the majority having no change in modified Rankin Scale score (63% [59/93] vs 75% [9/12], respectively, P = .98). CONCLUSION: SCCMs may cause significant symptoms. During primary resection, care should be taken to avoid leaving residual lesion remnants, which can lead to future hemorrhagic events and neurological morbidity. However, satisfactory results are achievable even with secondary or tertiary resections.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score0.765

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.316 · 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