Clinical Characteristics and Treatment Outcomes of Long-Level Intramedullary Spinal Cord Tumors: A Consecutive Series of 43 Cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Long-level intramedullary spinal cord tumors (LIMSCTs) cause complex treatment issues. However, LIMSCTs have rarely been analyzed separately. The authors reported a large case series of LIMSCTs and analyzed the clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes. METHODS: The medical data of patients with LIMSCTs at our institution between January 2015 and December 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Demographics, tumor size and location, pathology, extent of resection, and neurological functional status were collected. RESULTS: A total of 43 consecutive cases were included. Twenty-three cases (53.5%) of LIMSCTs were ependymal tumors. All patients with ependymal tumors achieved gross total resection (GTR). In ependymal tumor cases, 3 cases (13%) of ependymal tumors experienced postoperative neurological deterioration, and 66% of them showed an improvement at follow-up; 25.6% were low-grade astrocytic tumors. The rates of GTR, subtotal resection (STR) and partial resection (PR) were 63.6%, 27.3%, and 9.1%, respectively. Twenty-seven percent cases showed postoperative neurological worsening, and 33% of them had an improvement at follow-up; 20.9% were high-grade astrocytic tumors. The excision rates were 44.4% for GTR, 44.4% for STR, and 11% for PR, respectively. Fifty-five percent cases showed postoperative neurological worsening, and none of them had an improvement at follow-up. CONCLUSION: In this series, all LIMSCTs were gliomas. Aggressive tumor resection did not increase the risk of long-term functional deterioration in ependymal tumors and low-grade astrocytic tumors, but in high-grade astrocytic tumors, patients had a higher risk of neurological deterioration and difficulty in recovery. In ependymal tumors and low-grade astrocytic tumors, patients can achieve long-time survival after performing aggressive tumor resection.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".