MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406913197 · doi:10.52609/jmlph.v5i2.177

Laser-Induced Thermal Therapy in the Management of Low-Grade Gliomas: A Narrative Review

2025· review· en· W4406913197 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ibrahim Omar Dalabeh, Hossam Salameh, Yasmin Dahabreh, Abdallah Ali Al-Zayadneh, M Ghaemmaghami Amir, Ayman Haitham Khaled, Azad Jehad Makableh, Mohammad Omar Dalabeh

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Medicine Law & Public Health · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfrared Thermography in Medicine
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLaserLaser therapyNarrativeThermal management of electronic devices and systemsNarrative reviewMedicineMaterials scienceIntensive care medicinePhysicsOpticsArtLiteratureEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Low-grade gliomas (LGGs) are slow-growing, World Health Organization Grade I and II tumors that can transform into more aggres-sive malignancies over time. This transformation pre- sents significant challenges in managing the burden of health care. Laser-induced thermal therapy (LITT) has emerged as a promising minimally invasive treat-ment option for LGGs, offering precise tumor ablation with minimal damage to surrounding tissues. Method: This narrative review synthesizes data from relevant studies on the evolution, clinical manifestations, mo-lecular characteristics, and emerging management strategies for LGGs, with a focus on the role of LITT. Results: LITT, a minimally invasive technique, offers targeted tumor ablation with the added benefit of disrupting the blood-brain barrier to enhance drug delivery. Studies have shown that LITT can effectively reduce tumor size and improve survival rates in patients with both primary and recurrent gliomas. However, challenges such as procedure-related complications, including motor deficits and cerebral edema, as well as the need for further research on long-term efficacy, remain. Conclusion: LITT represents a significant advancement in the treatment of LGGs, combining precision and minimal invasiveness. Future studies should focus on optimiz-ing protocols, integrating molecular and genetic in-sights, and assessing long-term outcomes to enhance therapeutic efficacy and patient 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.865
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Medicine Law & Public HealthSame topicInfrared Thermography in MedicineFrench-language works237,207