Preoperative evaluation of the maxillary sinus roof as a guide for posterior ethmoid and sphenoid sinus surgery.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The maxillary sinus roof has long been regarded as a reliable reference point for both endoscopic and skull base surgery. OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to evaluate the maxillary sinus roof as a preoperative guide for posterior ethmoid and sphenoid sinus surgery. METHOD: This was a cross-sectional observational study of 50 randomly selected computed tomographic (CT) sinus scans from patients previously seen at a tertiary rhinology clinic. Each side of the sinuses was treated independently, giving a total of 100 sides for analysis. Using the medial maxillary sinus roof as a fixed reference point, the vertical distance to the posterior ethmoid skull base, natural sphenoid ostium, and anterior sphenoid roof and floor were measured. In addition, the maxillary sinus to posterior ethmoid height ratio was calculated for each patient. RESULTS: Relative to the medial maxillary sinus roof, the mean vertical height of the posterior ethmoid skull base was 14.08 ± 3.03 mm. Using this same reference point, the mean vertical distance to the natural sphenoid ostium, sphenoid roof, and sphenoid floor was 2.76 ± 2.80 mm, 12.18 ± 3.20 mm, and 5.94 ± 2.94 mm, respectively. The mean maxillary sinus to posterior ethmoid height ratio was 2.49:1. CONCLUSION: The medial maxillary sinus roof is a reliable preoperative reference point for guiding safe surgical entry into the posterior ethmoid and sphenoid sinus. In addition to providing a margin of safety away from the skull base, it may also help with localization of the natural sphenoid ostium. A classification scheme for evaluating posterior ethmoid height is proposed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".