MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Localized Transcranial Electrical Motor Evoked Potentials for Monitoring Cranial Nerves in Cranial Base Surgery

2005· article· en· W2031238617 on OpenAlexaff
Ryojo Akagami, Charles Dong, Brian D. Westerberg

Bibliographic record

VenueOperative Neurosurgery · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntraoperative Neuromonitoring and Anesthetic Effects
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalVancouver General HospitalVancouver Coastal Health Research InstituteUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCranial nervesFacial nerveCranial nerve diseaseSurgeryIntraoperative neurophysiological monitoringEvoked potentialAnesthesiaAudiologyEye disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To describe a novel monitoring technique that allows "functional" assessment of cranial nerve continuity during cranial base surgery. METHODS: Facial motor evoked potentials (MEP) in 71 consecutive patients were obtained by localized transcranial electrical stimulation in all patients requiring facial nerve monitoring during the period from November 2002 to August 2004. With transcranial electrical stimulation localized to the contralateral cortex, facial nerve MEPs are obtained through stimulation of more proximal intracranial structures. RESULTS: Logistic regression revealed that the final-to-baseline facial MEP ratio predicted satisfactory (House-Brackmann Grade 1 and 2 function) immediate postoperative facial function (0.005 > P > 0.0005). Contingency table analysis showed high correlation (chi2, P < or = 2 x 10(8)) and acceptable test characteristics using a 50% final-to-baseline MEP ratio. CONCLUSION: Facial nerve MEPs recorded intraoperatively during cranial base surgery using the proposed technique predicts immediate postoperative facial nerve outcome. This technique can also be used to monitor other motor cranial nerves in cranial base surgery.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations100
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOperative NeurosurgerySame topicIntraoperative Neuromonitoring and Anesthetic EffectsFrench-language works237,207