MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391990627 · doi:10.1055/s-0044-1779965

Can Histopathological Features Predict Outcomes in Grade 2 Meningiomas?

2024· article· en· W4391990627 on OpenAlexaff
M. Elder, Alexander D. Rebchuk, Kira Tosefsky, Celine Hounjet, Karina Chornenka, Stephen Yip, Serge Makarenko

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurological Surgery Part B Skull Base · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMeningioma and schwannoma management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The WHO Classification of CNS tumors grades meningiomas based on the presence of atypical (grade 2) or anaplastic (grade 3) histological features, or their absence (grade 1). Increasing grade is associated with worse recurrence and survival rates. Grade 2 tumors form a heterogeneous class both in their histological features and prognoses, and it remains unclear whether specific histological features can be used to predict outcomes within this class. Objective: The goal of this study was to determine the prognostic value of atypical histological features currently used for classification of grade 2 meningiomas. Methods: We used multivariate logistic regression and Cox regression to model the effects of each of seven histological features (proliferative index, brain invasion, small cell change, hypercellularity, sheeting, spontaneous necrosis and prominent nucleoli) on recurrence and survival in a large cohort of patients with grade 2 meningiomas, while controlling for the extent of resection, NF2 status, and exposure to adjuvant radiotherapy. Results: We included 189 patients with mean age 57.4 ± 14.6 years, 64% of whom were female. The median follow-up time was 64 (IQR: 20–96) months. There was no correlation between the presence of any atypical histological feature and recurrence or survival at 1 or 5 years, except for the relationship between proliferative index and survival at 1 year (OR = 0.044, 95% CI [0.0016, 0.48], p = 0.021). However, proliferative index was not significantly correlated with recurrence at 1 year (OR = 3.32, 95% CI [0.58–6.3], p = 0.26) or 5 years (OR = 1.98, 95% CI [0.69, 6.22], p = 0.21), or survival at 5 years (OR = 0.43, 95% CI [0.12, 1.66], p = 0.2). Discussion: In a large retrospective cohort of patients with grade 2 meningiomas, we failed to find any relationship between specific histological features and recurrence or survival outcomes. Although histology has allowed us to broadly stratify meningiomas with the WHO grading system, this suggests it should not be used for prognostication of grade 2 tumors and highlights the importance of pursuing other approaches to prognostication. Publication History Article published online: 05 February 2024 © 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurological Surgery Part B Skull BaseSame topicMeningioma and schwannoma managementFrench-language works237,207