MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059180905 · doi:10.1001/archopht.125.12.1631

Cerebrospinal Fluid Leaks Complicating Orbital or Oculoplastic Surgery

2007· article· en· W2059180905 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Ophthalmology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Surgical Oncology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCerebrospinal fluid leakMedicineLeakSurgeryExophthalmusCerebrospinal fluidComplicationOrbit (dynamics)DecompressionEye disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To report cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leakage as an unusual complication following orbital or oculoplastic procedures and to describe its diagnosis and management. METHODS: Retrospective case review. RESULTS: Three cases of CSF leaks are described in patients following orbital or oculoplastic procedures. Two patients developed CSF leaks after orbital decompression surgery for compressive optic neuropathy and 1 patient had a CSF leak following endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy. In the first case, high-resolution computed tomography confirmed the site of the leak that required surgical repair. In the second case, a beta(2)-transferrin test result confirmed the presence of CSF in the nasal drip, and coronal computed tomography identified a small fracture near the fovea ethmoidalis, but the leak resolved within 2 days of bed rest. In the third case, the patient reported several days of nasal dripping, but the problem had already resolved at the first follow-up appointment. CONCLUSIONS: A CSF leak following certain orbital and oculoplastic procedures is a rare but well-recognized complication. This case report reviews the mechanisms, diagnostic techniques, and staged management of CSF leaks.

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 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)0.000
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 score0.119
Threshold uncertainty score0.855

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.293 · 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