MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412166491 · doi:10.1017/cjn.2025.10293

P.146 Factors affecting local control of resected brain metastases after single-fraction stereotactic radiosurgery: a systematic scoping review

2025· article· en· W4412166491 on OpenAlexaffvenue
N Alarifi, Andrew Ajisebutu, S Molot-Toker, J Beiko

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBrain Metastases and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Winnipeg
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadiosurgeryMedicineFraction (chemistry)OncologyInternal medicineRadiation therapyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: This scoping review investigates factors influencing local control in patients with metastatic brain disease undergoing adjuvant stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) to surgical cavities. Methods: Seven databases (Ovid Medline, PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, BIOSIS, Scopus, Global Health, Cochrane) were searched up to August 2, 2021, using terms related to radiosurgery and brain metastasis. A three-level screening identified relevant studies. Data extraction included study type, population, SRS details, and outcomes. Variables recorded were histopathology, resection degree, number of metastases, SRS platform, dose parameters, cavity volume, margin, time to SRS, local control at 12/24 months, overall, and progression-free survival. Significant predictors were noted. Results: From 10,633 articles, 22 studies with 1,749 cavities. Local control at 12 months was 50–100% (median 82%, IQR 73–84.4%). Distant progression at 12 months was 36–64% (median 45.5%, IQR 38–51%) and at 24 months 39–76% (median 53%, IQR 46–55%). Histology, radiation dose, tumor size, extent of resection, treatment timing, tumor depth, and dural/pial attachment impacted local control, whereas primary disease status, surgical corridor coverage, and tumor location did not. Conclusions: Modifiable SRS treatment and patient selection factors need further investigation. This review emphasizes the necessity for consensus and guides future trials and guidelines to enhance metastatic brain disease management outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0100.014
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences NeurologiquesSame topicBrain Metastases and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207