Transnasal Endoscopic Medial Maxillectomy for Inverting Papilloma
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
OBJECTIVE: To describe the new technique of transnasal endoscopic medial maxillectomy. STUDY DESIGN: Study design included application of the new technique in the management of five patients with inverting papilloma; retrospective review of five patients who had lateral rhinotomy with medial maxillectomy for inverting papilloma; comparison of transnasal endoscopic medial maxillectomy to open medial maxillectomy for scope of resection, margin control, operative time, and surgical access; and detailed description of transnasal endoscopic medial maxillectomy. METHODS: Charts were reviewed and tabulated for operative time, duration of follow-up, and recurrence. Pathology reports were reviewed for number and orientation of the specimens and for margin control. RESULTS: Operative time was shorter for patients managed with transnasal endoscopic medial maxillectomy. All patients with transnasal endoscopic medial maxillectomy had one large, well-oriented specimen with margin control. There was no recurrence in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Transnasal endoscopic medial maxillectomy providing full access to the maxillary and ethmoid sinuses is described in detail. Transnasal endoscopic medial maxillectomy is an effective, reproducible technique with less operative time and morbidity and, possibly, better pathological tumor mapping than open medial maxillectomy for selected patients. Maxillary sinus involvement with inverting papilloma is not a contraindication for this technique. Strong illumination, superior resolution, and angled visualization, coupled with exact osteotomies, make transnasal endoscopic medial maxillectomy an efficacious technique for inverting papilloma with extension limited to the maxillary and ethmoid sinuses.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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