MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Os Odontoideum

2010· review· en· W2035568769 on OpenAlexaff
B. Mak Arvin, Marie‐Pierre Fournier‐Gosselin, Michael G. Fehlings

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurosurgery · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAsymptomaticMagnetic resonance imagingRadiologyEtiologySurgeryOssicleInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Os odontoideum is an independent ossicle of variable size with smooth circumferential cortical margins separated from the foreshortened odontoid peg. The etiology of os odontoideum remains controversial, but there is now emerging consensus on the traumatic etiology of os odontoideum rather than a congenital source. RESULTS: We reviewed the literature of os odontoideum. Patients with this condition can be asymptomatic or present with wide range of neurological dysfunctions. Although the diagnosis of os odontoideum can be made with plain x-rays, further imaging modalities including magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography angiography have improved the preoperative planning. CONCLUSION: There is a role for conservative treatment of an asymptomatic incidentally found, radiologically stable, and noncompressive os odontoideum. Conversely, surgery has a definite role in symptomatic cases. The main method of surgical treatment today is posterior decompression after reduction and fusion via independent C1 and C2 instrumentation. Irreducible, persistent anterior compression from os odontoideum can be approached by a transoral route with good results in experienced hands.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.004

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations139
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurosurgerySame topicSpinal Fractures and Fixation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207