Hyperostosis in meningioma: a retrospective exploration of histological correlates
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Meningiomas are the most common type of primary brain tumour. Hyperostosis is commonly associated but remains incompletely understood. This study aimed to evaluate the relationship between meningioma-associated hyperostosis and other tumour variables.Materials and Methods We retrospectively analysed 245 patients with 263 cranial meningiomas (202 CNS WHO grade 1, 53 grade 2, and 8 grade 3) who underwent surgery over a three-year period. Meningiomas adjacent to the skull were included. Demographic, radiological, and tumour characteristics were analysed using standard statistical methods.Results Hyperostosis was evident in 99 (38%) of meningiomas. The most common subtypes were meningothelial, transitional, fibrous, atypical, and anaplastic. There were no statistically significant relationships between hyperostosis and bone invasion, and CNS WHO grade and histological subtype. Hyperostosis was more common in skull base meningiomas than in convexity meningiomas (p = 0.001). Ki-67 index was significantly related to CNS WHO grade but not histological subtype when grade was considered. Mean Ki-67 index was higher in meningiomas without hyperostosis (p = 0.03). There was no such relationship with bone invasion (p = 0.29). Univariate and multivariate analysis revealed that Ki-67 index was negatively correlated with hyperostosis (p = 0.03), while bone invasion (p < 0.001) and skull base location (p = 0.03) were positively correlated with hyperostosis.Conclusions Hyperostosis did not appear to be related to CNS WHO grade or histological subtype. Proliferative activity appeared to be higher in meningiomas without hyperostosis and hyperostosis was associated with evidence of bone invasion and skull base location.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it