MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W131338451

The great auricular nerve: an anatomic and surgical study.

2012· article· en· W131338451 on OpenAlexaff
Russell Murphy, Peter T. Dziegielewski, Dan O’Connell, Hadi Seikaly, Kal Ansari

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFacial Nerve Paralysis Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineExternal jugular veinCervical plexusOtorhinolaryngologyEpineuriumAnatomySurgeryPeripheral nerve
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The great auricular nerve (GAN) originates from the cervical plexus at the levels of C2 and C3, supplying sensation to the skin overlying the lower aspect of the pinna and angle of the mandible. The GAN can be injured during many procedures in the head and neck, resulting in a significant negative impact on the patient's quality of life. There are no reliable anatomic studies of GAN in the area where it is most likely to get injured. OBJECTIVE: To determine the GAN relationship to the posterior border of the platysma and the external jugular vein (EJV). METHODS: Patients undergoing neck dissections were included in the study. Measurements were taken between the posterior border of the platysma relative to the nearest edge of the EJV and the GAN. The distance between the GAN and the EJV was also noted. RESULTS: The posterior borders of the platysma and EJV are found, on average, 0.08 cm away from each other, and the free edge of the platysma was most often posterior to the EJV. The distance from the platysma to the GAN was, on average, 0.60 cm. The distance between the EJV and the GAN was 1.17 cm. CONCLUSION: We have added a safe, reliable, and surgically relevant technique to the head and neck surgeon's armamentarium for identifying the GAN and avoiding attendant injury with long-term debilitating neurologic sequelae.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.132
Threshold uncertainty score0.192

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations27
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicFacial Nerve Paralysis Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207