A retrospective comparison of active surveillance to stereotactic radiosurgery for the management of elderly patients with an incidental meningioma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Management for elderly patients (> 65yo) with incidental meningiomas remains unclear. This study aims to characterize the functional and tumor outcomes of expectant and stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) management of asymptomatic meningioma elderly patients. METHODS: Using retrospectively collected data from 14 centers, SRS outcomes were compared to radiographic and clinical observation of asymptomatic meningiomas in elderly patients following propensity score matching. RESULTS: Following propensity score matching, 114 patients were in each cohort. Tumor control was achieved at 97.37% in the SRS cohort, and no meningioma growth was seen 71.93% of the observation cohorts (p < 0.01; OR 14.44 [95% CI 4.27-48.78]). New neurological deficits developed in 1.39% of the SRS cohort but in none of the patients managed conservatively. 3.5% of patients underwent resection in the active surveillance matched cohort compared to 0.9% of patients in the SRS cohort (p = 0.063; OR 0.135 [95% CI 0.163-1.117]). The all-cause mortality rate was almost half in the SRS group (9.65%) compared to the observation group (18.42%) (p = 0.06; OR 0.47 [95% CI .22-1.03]). CONCLUSION: SRS achieves superior radiological tumor control compared to surveillance but with a slightly increased the risk of new SRS-related neurological deficits in elderly patients with asymptomatic meningiomas. Although SRS reduces meningioma progression, the need for of an open neurosurgical procedure and mortality were not significantly reduced. Furthermore, mortality in the observation group was not directly related to the meningioma in any of the patients.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".