Intradural cystic schwannomas of the spine: A case-based systematic review of an unusual tumor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Cystic schwannomas have only been reported in a few case reports/series. As a result, they may be misdiagnosed and a standardized management approach remains challenging to establish. Research question: The aim of this study was to compile all reported cases of cystic schwannomas and analyze the perioperative course based on a systematic review of the literature with an additional two cases from the authors' experience. Material and methods: We conducted a search of MEDLINE and CENTRAL databases for spinal intradural extramedullary cystic schwannomas, in accordance to the PRISMA statement. All title/abstracts were screened, and a full-text review of the remaining articles was conducted. The results were compiled in tables and summarized using means and standard deviation (SD), median and interquartile range, and percentage and 95% confidence intervals. Results: We identified 263 articles, of which 35, which reported 54 cases, were included. Including our case-reports (n = 56), patients had a mean age of 47.7 years (SD ± 13.0 years) at presentation, 57% were males, and most lesions were lumbar (43%). The most common symptoms were pain (82%) and muscle weakness (68%) with 84% of patients showing neurological findings. 70% of patients showed a complete relief of symptoms after surgery and 96% reported improvement. Only four complications were reported. Discussion and conclusion: Schwannomas should be considered in the differential diagnosis of intradural extramedullary cystic lesions. Patients typically present with subacute to chronic pain and/or neurologic changes. Surgical resection is the primary therapeutic modality and usually has a good to excellent outcome.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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".