A New Porcine Skull Base Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Fibrin glue is used in addition to grafts and flaps to repair cerebrospinal (CSF) leaks. We designed a porcine model to test the hypothesis that fibrin glue increases biomechanical strength. STUDY DESIGN: A randomized experimental animal study. METHODS: Ten pigs underwent craniotomy with creation of a fistula through the cribriform plate into the nasal cavity. CSF leaks were endoscopically confirmed and repaired using pericranial grafts. The animals were randomized into a fibrin glue group (n=5) and a control group (n=5). Seven days later, endoscopic examination assessed for CSF leaks. The skull bases were harvested and examined for the degree of graft adherence (graded I-V) and subjected to burst pressure testing and histopathological analysis. RESULTS: Eight animals survived, four in each group. There were no CSF leaks in the fibrin glue group and one in the control group. The fibrin glue group showed greater graft adherence (P=0.029) and higher burst pressures (13.8+/-5.4 vs 4.6+/-3.1 psi, P=0.021). Histopathological analysis revealed no difference in inflammation and bone remodeling. CONCLUSIONS: The porcine model is a good model for anterior skull base defects. The model confirmed that fibrin glue reduces the rate of CSF leak by improving graft adherence and strength of repair.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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".