A Safe and Effective Method for Treatment of Chronic Subdural Haematoma
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
OBJECTIVE: Burr-hole irrigation and burr-hole drainage without irrigation are the most popular methods for treatment of chronic subdural haematoma. It is not well known if irrigation is necessary or which method has a higher recurrence rate. We compared the recurrence rates of those two methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-two patients were treated by burr-hole irrigation (irrigation group), whereas 38 patients were treated by burr-hole drainage (drainage group). Recurrence rate and its relation with sex, age, haematoma localization and aetiology were investigated in both groups. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between recurrence rates of the two groups. There was also no correlation between recurrence rate and age, sex, haematoma localization, or aetiology. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference between recurrence rates of the two groups. Since the burr-hole drainage method is simpler to carry out, its use may be preferable.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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