Clinical and Radiologic Outcomes after Cryoablation of Desmoid Tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose This study aims to evaluate the impact of cryoablation on patients with desmoid tumors, considering both pain and functional impairment. Cryoablation has emerged as a promising intervention, primarily recognized for its ability to reduce radiological evidence of the neoplasm. However, the focus of this research is on assessing the clinical outcomes, recognizing the importance of improving patient-reported symptoms as additional evidence is required in this area to strengthen previous findings. Methods A retrospective study of 18 patients treated with cryoablation for desmoid tumors were included in this study. The evaluation of clinical status involved structured interviews to capture changes in pain and functional impairment. Pain scores and functional impairment scores were recorded on a 10-point Likert scale before and after the treatment. The correlation between these clinical findings and imaging was a key aspect of the investigation. Results Following cryoablation treatment, the average pain scores exhibited a notable decrease of 4.75 points on the 10-point Likert scale. Similarly, functional impairment scores demonstrated a significant average decrease of 4.0 points. Additionally, there was an overall decrease in viable tumor volume after ablation, correlating with the above findings. Conclusion This study provides evidence that cryoablation is effective in achieving clinically significant improvement in patients with desmoid tumors. While the reduction in radiological evidence is recognized, the emphasis of this study was on patient-reported outcomes, particularly in pain and functional impairment. These findings underscore that cryoablation is a valuable intervention in the comprehensive management of desmoid tumors improving overall quality of life.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".