MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016016229 · doi:10.2310/7070.2001.20838

Mitomycin C in Sinus Surgery: Preliminary Results in a Rabbit Model

2001· article· en· W2016016229 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Akram Rahal, Louis Péloquin, Christian Ahmarani

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Otolaryngology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Surgical Oncology
Canadian institutionsHôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMitomycin CSurgeryStenosisEndoscopic sinus surgeryWound healingOral mucosaMaxillary sinusPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mitomycin C (MMC) is an antineoplastic agent with an antiproliferative effect on fibroblasts. It is routinely used topically in ophthalmology. The goal of this research project is to evaluate if topically applied MMC at the site of a maxillary antrostomy will inhibit the healing process of the mucosa and reduce the risk of postoperative stenosis. Antrostomies were carried out in both maxillary sinuses of 10 rabbits. For each rabbit, MMC is applied at the site of the antrostomy on one side while the other side serves as control. Antrostomies are re-evaluated 3 weeks later and their areas measured precisely. Seven of 10 control antrostomies were closed compared to only 1 of the 10 treated with MMC (p = .014). Comparison of the areas of the control and treated sides also proved to be statistically significant (p = .0039). Topical application of MMC was not associated with any systemic side effects and did not cause any permanent microscopic changes since the mucosa re-epithelialized normally. These results suggest that MMC slows the postoperative healing process of the nasal mucosa of the rabbit without affecting re-epithelialization. This could allow antrostomies to heal with a wider diameter, decreasing the risk of postoperative stenosis. Our next step will be to reproduce these results following functional endoscopic surgery on humans.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.283
Threshold uncertainty score0.375

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations34
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of OtolaryngologySame topicHead and Neck Surgical OncologyFrench-language works237,207