Cadaveric Anatomical Comparison of the Lateral Nasal Wall After External and Endonasal Dacryocystorhinostomy
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
PURPOSE: Much literature has accumulated espousing the relative merits of endonasal and external dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR). However, there is comparatively little information on the relative anatomic differences between these 2 approaches. The purpose of this study is to investigate the anatomic relationships of the lateral nasal wall for endonasal and external DCR. METHODS: Ten cadaver half heads were used in this study. Half were subject to endonasal and half to external DCR procedures. The lateral nasal wall was then dissected and measurements were taken of ostium and anastomosis size and position relative to other landmarks on the lateral nasal wall. Relationships were compared between the 2 procedures. RESULTS: The dimensions and area of the ostium and the anastomosis were similar between the 2 procedures. The lower portion of the ostium was located more inferiorly in endonasal DCR. Additionally, the ostium was more likely to be found lateral to the axilla of the middle turbinate in endonasal DCR, when compared with anterior for external. External DCR was also more likely to involve opening the anterior ethmoid air cells than endonasal approach. CONCLUSION: Endonasal and external DCR osteomies appear to be of similar size, with the endonasal opening being located slightly lower and more posterior on the lateral nasal wall.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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