MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014632532 · doi:10.3171/foc.2003.14.6.9

Anatomical basis of approaches to foramen magnum and lower clival meningiomas: comparison of retrosigmoid and transcondylar approaches

2003· article· en· W2014632532 on OpenAlex
Agustinus Suhardja, Anne Agur, Michael D. Cusimano

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurosurgical FOCUS · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Surgical Oncology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClivusForamen magnumCadaveric spasmMedicineAnatomyNuclear medicineSkull

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECT: Meningiomas of the lower clivus and foramen magnum are among the most challenging of all neurosurgical lesions. Debate continues regarding the most appropriate approach to this eloquent anatomical region. This anatomical study was undertaken to measure and compare the area of surgical exposures of the lower clivus achieved using the retrosigmoid and the extreme-lateral transcondylar (ELT) approaches. METHODS: Thirteen embalmed cadaveric heads were dissected bilaterally via the retrosigmoid approach on one side and the ELT approach on the other. The circumference of the area of exposure was delineated using beaded pins placed into the dura. After removal of the brain, the longest longitudinal and transverse axes of the pinned areas were measured and surface area calculated. The area of surgical exposure was also expressed as a percentage of the total area of the lower clivus. Normalized and adjusted surface areas were calculated using the bimastoid diameter. The areas of exposure were compared using the two-tailed paired Student t-test. The mean area of exposure required using the retrosigmoid approach was 19.8 +/- 14.7 mm2 (range 6-49 mm2) and that using the ELT approach was 27.8 +/- 22.8 mm2 (range 10-90 mm2). The mean percentage of the lower clivus exposed by the retrosigmoid approach was 14.9 +/- 3.6% (range 10-22%) and that exposed by the ELT approach was 20.5 +/- 4.9% (range 10-25%). The ELT approach provided significantly greater area of operative exposure and allowed a significantly higher percentage of lower clivus and foramen magnum exposure than did the retrosigmoid approach (p < 0.05). Normalized and adjusted surface areas, taking into consideration the bimastoid diameter, were also statistically significant in favor of the ELT approach. CONCLUSIONS: The ELT approach provided a significantly greater area of exposure than did the retrosigmoid approach.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.440
Threshold uncertainty score0.768

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.151
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.154 · 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