MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970125279 · doi:10.1097/scs.0b013e3181ebe62f

Craniosynostosis Involving the Squamous Temporal Sutures

2010· review· en· W1970125279 on OpenAlexaff
Adrianna Ranger, Navjot Chaudhary, Damir B. Matic

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Craniofacial Surgery · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCraniofacial Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCraniosynostosisCraniosynostosesPresentation (obstetrics)SynostosisFibrous jointCoronal sutureCoronal planeSurgeryAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Craniosynostosis is a condition in which 1 or more cranial sutures fuse prematurely, often secondary to a fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) mutation, typically involving FGFR2 or FGFR3. This mutation may occur sporadically or in the setting of a genetic syndrome and typically presents within the first few days of life or in early infancy. Most commonly, the sagittal and coronal sutures are involved, although involvement of the lambdoidal and/or metopic sutures is not uncommon. Surgical correction is undertaken both for cosmetic purposes and to relieve raised intracranial pressure, both of which can be severe, depending on the sutures involved. We report on 2 children who presented in their first year of life with synostosis involving: in one instance, a single squamous temporal suture, and in the other, both squamous temporal sutures. The initial presentation and clinical courses of these 2 patients are highly distinct from one another, although both ultimately did quite well after extensive cranial remodeling. To the best of our knowledge, only a handful of patients with squamous synostosis have been reported in the medical literature.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Craniofacial SurgerySame topicCraniofacial Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207