MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1929447923 · doi:10.14802/jmd.15004

Two Cases of Secondary Hemifacial Spasm: Pathophysiology and Management

2015· article· en· W1929447923 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Movement Disorders · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrigeminal Neuralgia and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHemifacial spasmMedicineCerebellopontine angleCulpritFacial nerveNeurovascular bundleFacial musclesPathophysiologyPresentation (obstetrics)SurgeryRadiologyMagnetic resonance imagingAnatomyPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dear Editor, Classical hemifacial spasm (HFS) has been attributed to an atraumatic pulsatile vascular compression of the facial nerve leading to hyperactivity within the central components of the nerve, alleviated via mobilization of the culprit vessel [1]. In a small subset of patients the cause may be attributed to lesions involving the facial nerve, most commonly benign cerebellopontine angle (CPA) tumors [2,3]. In such secondary HFS the clinical manifestation is usually a tonic facial contraction rather than the intermittent twitching characteristic of common HFS [4,5]. There may, however, also be rare patients with a common presentation of HFS but with an associated CPA tumor [6,7]; the role of neurovascular compression (NVC) in these cases is uncertain. We present 2 cases of secondary HFS, both related to benign CPA tumors.

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.

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)0.000
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 score0.366
Threshold uncertainty score0.312

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.266 · 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