MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4400443341 · doi:10.3390/curroncol31070293

Radiosurgically Treated Recurrent Cerebellar Hemangioblastoma: A Case Report and Literature Review

2024· review· en· W4400443341 on OpenAlexaffvenue
François Fabi, Ève Chamberland, Myreille D’Astous, Karine Michaud, Martin Côté, Isabelle Thibault

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer, Hypoxia, and Metabolism
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalHôpital de l'Enfant-Jésus
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCerebellumHemangioblastomaCerebellar diseasesPathologyBioinformaticsInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cystic, sporadic hemangioblastomas (HBLs) represent a unique, therapeutically challenging subset of central nervous system tumors, mainly due to their unpredictable growth patterns and potential for symptomatic progression. This study aims to explore the complexities surrounding the diagnosis, treatment, and long-term management of these lesions. METHODS: A comprehensive literature review was performed, and a detailed case study of a 56-year-old patient with a cystic, sporadic cerebellar HBL was produced. RESULTS: The case highlights the multiphasic growth pattern typical of cystic, sporadic HBLs, characterized by periods of dormancy and subsequent rapid expansion. An initial surgical intervention offered temporary control. Tumor recurrence, mainly through cystic enlargement, was treated by SRS. A subsequent recurrence, again caused by cystic growth, eventually led to the patient's death. The intricacies of treatment modalities, focusing on the transition from surgical resection to stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) upon recurrence, are discussed. Parameters indicating impending tumor growth, coupled with symptomatic advances, are also explored. CONCLUSIONS: The management of cystic, sporadic cerebellar HBLs requires a strategic approach that can be informed by radiological characteristics and tumoral behavior. This study underscores the importance of a proactive, individualized management plan and suggests guidelines that could inform clinical decision making.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.347 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Oncology→Same topicCancer, Hypoxia, and Metabolism→French-language works237,207→