MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1559659863 · doi:10.3171/2014.8.jns131545

Gamma Knife rhizotomy-induced histopathology in multiple sclerosis–related trigeminal neuralgia

2014· article· en· W1559659863 on OpenAlexafffund
David B. Phillips, Marc R. Del Bigio, Anthony M. Kaufmann

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of neurosurgery · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrigeminal Neuralgia and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaShared Health
FundersCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsMedicineRhizotomyTrigeminal neuralgiaHistopathologyMultiple sclerosisSurgeryAnatomyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECT: In this report, the authors describe the pathological changes in the human trigeminal nerve after Gamma Knife radiosurgery. METHODS: Three trigeminal nerves of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS)-related trigeminal neuralgia (MSTN) after Gamma Knife radiosurgery and other ablative procedures were examined by a neuropathologist. These cases were compared with 3 patients with typical TN who underwent partial surgical rhizotomy following recurrent symptoms after gasserian injury procedures, as well as with autopsy specimens from patients with and without MSTN. RESULTS: The three irradiated MS-TN specimens exhibited axon loss, demyelination, myelin debris, and fibrosis. Mild lymphocytic infiltrate was present in all 3 samples from MS-TN patients. The nonirradiated trigeminal nerve samples were generally well myelinated with rare degenerating axons. The microscopic findings in trigeminal nerve autopsy specimens were normal in patients without TN, with MS but not TN, and MS-TN. CONCLUSIONS: The inflammation observed in MS-TN specimens collected following Gamma Knife radiosurgery has not previously been described in the literature. These data provide new insight into the changes that occur in trigeminal nerve following stereotactic radiosurgery.

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)0.001
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 score0.307
Threshold uncertainty score0.948

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations8
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of neurosurgerySame topicTrigeminal Neuralgia and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207