Influence of dural attachment on remnant progression after subtotal resection in WHO grade 1 meningioma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Meningioma resection remains partial in over 25% of cases, with few known predictors of residual disease progression. This study aims to assess if dural attachment, identified on postoperative imaging, influences meningioma progression following subtotal resection. METHODS: A retrospective cohort design was applied to patients who underwent subtotal meningioma resection at our institution. MRI data collected over time included remnant volumes, surface areas of contact with dura and signal intensity ratios. Progression was defined as an increase in remnant volume of at least 25%. RESULTS: , respectively. Criteria for progression was met in 35 remnants (57.4%), with a mean time to progression of 18.1 months. Greater surface area of contact with dura relative to total remnant surface area was a significant predictor of progression in both univariate and multivariate analyses. Smaller remnant diameter and larger extent of resection were marginally associated with progression. Signal intensity ratios failed to demonstrate association with progression. CONCLUSION: The degree of meningioma remnant attachment to dura appears associated with progression. Reduction of dural involvement in residual disease intentionally left in place may be considered when appropriate, with further studies needed to refine surgical considerations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".