How we do it: the anterior thoraco‐cervical approach to tumours of the thoracic inlet
Bibliographic record
Abstract
KEYPOINTS: Tumours that arise in the thoracic inlet and superior mediastinum may be benign or malignant and present the surgeon with a difficult problem of access. The standard approach to the thoracic inlet from below offers limited exposure to the vascular and neural structures superior to the tumours. The anterior thoraco-cervical approach to the root of the neck and superior mediastinum combines the anterior cervical approach with a limited upper median sternotomy. If further access is required to achieve surgical clearance a full sternotomy split can be performed. The approach offers excellent exposure and helps to facilitate complete resection of benign and malignant tumours, which would otherwise be deemed inoperable or difficult to resect completely through other standard approaches. In contrast to previously described anterior transcervical thoracic approaches which required resection of part of the clavicle or manubrium as well as thoracotomy with increased morbidity, the anterior thoraco-cervical approach is associated with little morbidity and the postoperative stay is short.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".