Visual Recovery and Predictors of Recurrence in Giant Olfactory Groove Meningioma: A 22-Year Retrospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Olfactory groove meningiomas (OGMs) comprising 13% of intracranial meningiomas. OGMs are slow-growing tumors often going undetected until reaching giant size. These tumors can cause a variety of symptoms, including headaches, personality changes, insomnia, and visual deterioration. A little is known about the visual recovery and prediction of recurrence of giant olfactory groove meningioma patients. Study Design and Methods: This is a retrospective study conducted at a major medical center. This study included all the patients with giant olfactory meningioma (more than 6 cm in diameter) who underwent surgery over a 22-year period (January 2000 to December 2022). Long-term outcomes including visual status, recurrence, and functional status were collected. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify predictors of recurrence and functional outcome. Results: Thirty-two patients met the criteria and included in this study with a mean age of 55.8 years, and the majority (71%) were female. These patients were followed up for a mean of 62 months. Most of our giant OGMs were reported as WHO grade 1 (84.4%). The improvement of visual acuity and visual field deficits was observed in 19 patients after surgery. Recurrence was observed radiologically in nine patients (28.1%) at a mean of 56 months of follow-up. Only three required reoperations for tumor resection. One patient had brain abscess following rhinorrhea and required surgery. Multivariable analysis identified age, Simpson grade of excision, and WHO grading of tumor were the factors that significantly affected the recurrence rate. Conclusion: This study showed that visual deficits and functional outcome will improve in patients with giant OGMs after the surgery. The post operative outcome was strongly predicted by factors like the patient’s age, the extent of resection, and histological status. Building a new predictive scale based on these parameters appears to strongly predict the giant OGMs outcome. 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".