Meningioma recurrence: Time for an online prediction tool?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Meningioma, the most common brain tumor, traditionally considered benign, has a relatively high risk of recurrence over a patient's lifespan. In addition, with the emergence of several clinical, radiological, and molecular variables, it is becoming evident that existing grading criteria, including Simpson's and World Health Organization classification, may not be sufficient or accurate. As web-based tools for widespread accessibility and usage become commonplace, such as those for gene identification or other cancers, it is timely for meningioma care to take advantage of evolving new markers to help advance patient care. Methods: A scoping review of the meningioma literature was undertaken using the MEDLINE and Embase databases. We reviewed original studies and review articles from September 2022 to December 2023 that provided the most updated information on the demographic, clinical, radiographic, histopathological, molecular genetics, and management of meningiomas in the adult population. Results: deletion, subtotal resection, and higher grade. Despite a large body of evidence on meningiomas, however, we noted a lack of tools to aid the clinician in decision-making. We identified the need for an online, self-updating, and machine-learning-based dynamic model that can incorporate demographic, clinical, radiographic, histopathological, and genetic variables to predict the recurrence risk of meningiomas. Conclusion: Although a challenging endeavor, a recurrence prediction tool for meningioma would provide critical information for the meningioma patient and the clinician making decisions on long-term surveillance and management of meningiomas.
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 | 0.008 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".