Intraoperative localization of the marginal mandibular nerve: a landmark study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Identification and preservation of the marginal mandibular nerve (MMN) remains an important step in otolaryngology procedures. Current publications place the MMN at least 1 cm below the mandible. This study will evaluate the accuracy of the method of determining the surgical location of this branch of the facial nerve in vivo. METHODS: MMN were examined in 52 consecutive otolaryngology patients. Using a validated landmarking scheme, distances were measured from the inferior edge of the mandible and the lowest point of the nerve. A comparison of 33 nerves pairs was undertaken. Effect of patient's age was analysed. RESULTS: Eighty five nerves were landmarked. The mean position of the nerve was 0.2-3.4 mm higher than the margin of the mandible. There were no significant difference in position with respect to age and left versus right comparisons. CONCLUSION: The marginal mandibular nerve (MMN) is significantly higher than previously published. The location of the nerve on the right does not correlate with the left. Location of the nerve does not correlate with patient's age.
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) | 0.002 | 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".