P.112 Location pattern of recurrence of WHO Grade 1 Meningiomas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Meningiomas can lead to significant morbidity and mortality and have recurrence potential despite their benign classification. The precise location of the recurrence has not been delineated. The objective of this study was to determine any spatial clustering of recurrence for surgically treated Grade 1 meningiomas. Methods: Patients diagnosed with Grade 1 meningiomas and treated with surgical resection with recurrence were reviewed. Patient demographics, presentation, extent of resection, time to recurrence, and location were established by medical records. Outcomes were the time to recurrence and location relative to the original surgical bed. Results: Among the 42 cases that met the study inclusion criteria, 12 were male and 30 were female. The mean age at treatment was 49.7 years, and the mean years until recurrence was 5.2 years. 33 (68.8%) tumours recurred locally, 12 (25.0%) recurred at the periphery (<1cm of the surgical bed), and 3 (6.3%) recurred distal to the resection site. Conclusions: A sizeable portion of cases may benefit from therapy directed beyond the resection margin. It may be more successful to prevent recurrence in these patients by performing a more aggressive resection of the dural attachment surrounding the tumour and/or focusing adjuvant therapy on the area surrounding the resection cavity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".