Comparison of two radiologic methods for measuring the size and growth rate of extracanalicular vestibular schwannomas.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare two methods for measuring the size and growth rate of extracanalicular vestibular schwannomas: the method recommended in 1995 by the American Academy of Otolaryngology--Head Neck Surgery (AAO-HNS) and the maximum cerebellopontine angle (CPA) tumor diameter, i.e., the method often used in radiologic reports. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective clinical study. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Fifty-four patients with a radiologic diagnosis of unilateral extracanalicular vestibular schwannoma whose tumors were managed conservatively for a mean duration of 39.8 months (range 12-194 months). INTERVENTION: The extracanalicular component was measured by use of high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging (2- to 3-mm axial slices) at 6- to 12-month intervals. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Tumor diameter was calculated by two methods. In the AAO-HNS method, the axial image with the largest extracanalicular tumor diameter was selected, and the maximum anteroposterior (A-P) and medial-lateral (M-L) tumor diameters were calculated. The A-P diameter was calculated parallel to the posterior surface of the petrous temporal bone, and the M-L diameter was calculated perpendicular to it. The size of the tumor was calculated as the square root of the product of these two diameters. In the maximum CPA method, the maximum CPA tumor diameter in any direction was also measured. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the two methods for measuring the extracanalicular tumor size and growth rate, although the maximum CPA diameter method was consistently greater than the AAO-HNS method. There was a strong positive correlation between the two methods for assessing tumor size and growth. The A-P and M-L extracanalicular tumor diameters also showed a strong positive correlation, suggesting that the extracanalicular portion of vestibular schwannomas tends to enlarge equally in both these directions. CONCLUSION: There is a strong positive correlation between these two methods for assessing both the tumor size and the growth rate of extracanalicular vestibular schwannomas. However, because vestibular schwannomas tend to grow in both the A-P and the M-L directions, this suggests that the AAO-HNS method is preferable.
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 | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".