MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399971714 · doi:10.1227/neu.0000000000003049

Repeat Single-Session Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Cerebral Arteriovenous Malformations: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and International Stereotactic Radiosurgery Society Practice Guidelines

2024· review· en· W4399971714 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmed Shaaban, Salem M Tos, Georgios Mantziaris, Rupesh Kotecha, Laura Fariselli, Alessandra Gorgulho, Marc Levivier, Lijun Ma, Ian Paddick, Bruce E. Pollock, Jean Régis, John H. Suh, Shoji Yomo, Arjun Sahgal, Jason P. Sheehan

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurosurgery · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVascular Malformations Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadiosurgeryMedicineMeta-analysisMEDLINESystematic reviewIncidence (geometry)Retrospective cohort studyRadiologySurgeryInternal medicineRadiation therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Repeat stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for residual arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) can be considered as a salvage approach after failure of initial SRS. There are no published guidelines regarding patient selection, timing, or SRS parameters to guide clinical practice. This systematic review aimed to review outcomes and complications from the published literature to inform practice recommendations provided on behalf of the International Stereotactic Radiosurgery Society. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase was conducted. Fourteen studies with 925 patients met the inclusion criteria. Patients were treated between 1985 and 2022. All studies were retrospective, except for one prospective cohort. RESULTS: The median patient age at repeat SRS ranged from 32 to 60 years. Four studies (630 patients) reported detailed information on Spetzler-Martin grade at the time of repeat SRS; 12.54% of patients had Spetzler-Martin grade I AVMs (79/630 patients), 46.51% had grade II (293/630), 34.92% had grade III (220/630), 5.08% had grade IV (32/630), and 0.95% had grade V (6/630). The median prescription doses varied between 15 and 25 Gy (mean, 13.06-22.8 Gy). The pooled overall obliteration rate at the last follow-up after repeat SRS was 59% (95% CI 51%-67%) with a median follow-up between 21 and 50 months. The pooled hemorrhage incidence at the last follow-up was 5% (95% CI 4%-7%), and the pooled overall radiation-induced change incidence was 12% (95% CI 7%-20%). CONCLUSION: For an incompletely obliterated AVM, repeat radiosurgery after 3 to 5 years of follow-up from the first SRS provides a reasonable benefit to the risk profile. After repeat SRS, obliteration is achieved in the majority of patients. The risk of hemorrhage or radiation-induced change appears low, and International Stereotactic Radiosurgery Society recommendations are presented.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.107

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.026
Bibliometrics0.0100.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.193
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurosurgerySame topicVascular Malformations Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207