Surgical management of Glioma Grade 4: technical update from the neuro-oncology section of the Italian Society of Neurosurgery (SINch®): a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The extent of resection (EOR) is an independent prognostic factor for overall survival (OS) in adult patients with Glioma Grade 4 (GG4). The aim of the neuro-oncology section of the Italian Society of Neurosurgery (SINch®) was to provide a general overview of the current trends and technical tools to reach this goal. METHODS: A systematic review was performed. The results were divided and ordered, by an expert team of surgeons, to assess the Class of Evidence (CE) and Strength of Recommendation (SR) of perioperative drugs management, imaging, surgery, intraoperative imaging, estimation of EOR, surgery at tumor progression and surgery in elderly patients. RESULTS: A total of 352 studies were identified, including 299 retrospective studies and 53 reviews/meta-analysis. The use of Dexamethasone and the avoidance of prophylaxis with anti-seizure medications reached a CE I and SR A. A preoperative imaging standard protocol was defined with CE II and SR B and usefulness of an early postoperative MRI, with CE II and SR B. The EOR was defined the strongest independent risk factor for both OS and tumor recurrence with CE II and SR B. For intraoperative imaging only the use of 5-ALA reached a CE II and SR B. The estimation of EOR was established to be fundamental in planning postoperative adjuvant treatments with CE II and SR B and the stereotactic image-guided brain biopsy to be the procedure of choice when an extensive surgical resection is not feasible (CE II and SR B). CONCLUSIONS: A growing number of evidences evidence support the role of maximal safe resection as primary OS predictor in GG4 patients. The ongoing development of intraoperative techniques for a precise real-time identification of peritumoral functional pathways enables surgeons to maximize EOR minimizing the post-operative morbidity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".