MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062889915 · doi:10.1177/000348940010900913

Postoperative Headache after Surgery for Vestibular Schwannoma

2000· article· en· W2062889915 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hilla Levo, Ilmari Pyykkö, Göran Blomstedt

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Otology Rhinology & Laryngology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMeningioma and schwannoma management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSchwannomaVestibular systemMcGill Pain QuestionnaireSurgeryVisual analogue scaleAnesthesiaRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Postoperative headache was studied among 251 patients who underwent operation for vestibular schwannoma. A questionnaire based on the McGill Pain Questionnaire and the Finnish Pain Questionnaire was sent to the patients. Twenty-one expressions describing postoperative headache were extracted with a factor analysis. The pain intensity was expressed on a visual analog scale, and the risk factors for postoperative headache were evaluated. Immediately after the operation, 154 subjects reported headache. Eighty-nine of the patients had had headache before operation, whereas 65 patients experienced headache only after operation. An average of 8.9 years after surgery, 93 patients still reported headache. Headache was a major problem for 27 subjects; 18 of the 27 had suffered from headache before operation. A retrosigmoidal approach, postoperative gait problems, preoperative headache, and small tumor size predicted postoperative problems with headache. When headache is present before operation, it tends to continue after operation, and if headache continues for 1 year, it usually persists without being reduced.

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: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations50
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Otology Rhinology & LaryngologySame topicMeningioma and schwannoma managementFrench-language works237,207