Discrepancies in the Natural History of Intracranial Meningioma between Men and Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Meningiomas constitute 34% of all intracranial tumors and can induce a range of symptoms from mild to severe, potentially leading to fatal outcomes. Given their prevalence, being two to three times more common in women than in men, there has been comparatively less research on meningiomas in men. This study aims to examine the distinctive aspects of the natural history of meningiomas in both men and women concerning risk factors, tumor location, and prognosis. Methods: All adults with a new diagnosis of intracranial meningioma in our institution between 2003 and 2021 were included. Patients’ variables collected included risk factors, symptoms, size and location of the tumor, follow-up time and treatments. Comparative analysis was conducted with the use of Student’s t -test and chi-square for means and proportions respectively. Kaplan–Meier method was used for survival analysis. Results: A total of 1,861 patients (468 men, 1,393 women) were included. Men exhibited a higher mean BMI compared to women (28.7 vs. 27.6 kg/m 2 , p = 0.026). Meningiomas were significantly closer to the midline in men (37 vs. 27%, p < 0.001). Men had more falcine (17 vs. 10%, p < 0.001) and parafalcine (9 vs. 6%, p = 0.025) meningiomas, whereas women had more cerebellopontine angle (8 vs. 4%, p = 0.004) and posterior fossa (5 vs. 1.5%, p = 0.001) meningiomas (Fig. 1). Fig. 1 Precise location of meningiomas between men and women. Men had significantly larger mean tumor volumes (40 vs. 25.4 cc, p < 0.001) at diagnosis and a higher prevalence of WHO grade 2 meningioma (22 vs. 9%, p < 0.001). Overall survival was significantly shorter in men than in women (142 vs. 173 months, p < 0.001; [ Fig. 2 ]). Fig. 2 Overall survival between men and women. Progression-free survival after any treatment was also shorter in men than in women (121 vs. 151 months, p < 0.001; [ Fig. 3 ]). Fig. 3: Progression-free survival between men and women after their treatment. Conclusion: We observed a more aggressive behavior of meningiomas in men, impacting their prognosis negatively. These findings suggest a need for closer monitoring of meningiomas in men, emphasizing the importance of gender-specific considerations in the management and treatment of these tumors. Publication History Article published online: 07 February 2025 © 2025. Thieme. All rights reserved. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".