Marcus Gunn Jaw-Winking Phenomenon
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To introduce a new method for the evaluation of Marcus Gunn jaw-winking ptosis that more precisely defines the severity of blepharoptosis. METHODS: A retrospective review of 16 consecutive patients with Marcus Gunn jaw-winking ptosis presenting to our institution between 1993 to 1999 was performed. The position of the affected eyelid was observed after applying a technique of jaw immobilization and disruption of fusion with temporary occlusion of the ipsilateral side. RESULTS: In patients presenting with mild to moderate Marcus Gunn jaw-winking, the majority (62.5%) demonstrated a positive test, uncovering complete or near complete ptosis. Test results were partially positive in 3 patients (18.8%) with increased but not complete ptosis and negative in 3 patients (18.8%) with no change in eyelid position. CONCLUSIONS: Blepharoptosis associated with Marcus Gunn jaw-winking phenomenon is often more severe than found by conventional clinical evaluation. This finding may explain the frequent undercorrection and unpredictable results following levator resection. In patients exhibiting a positive jaw-winking ptosis test, disappointing outcomes with levator resection may be avoided by instead proceeding with a frontalis suspension with levator disinsertion as recommended for ptosis with severe jaw winking.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it