MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064170531 · doi:10.1155/2014/974930

Coronary Spasm in Neurosurgical Patients and Role of Trigeminocardiac Reflex

2014· review· en· W2064170531 on OpenAlexaff
Tumul Chowdhury, Cyrill Meuwly, Nora Sandu, Ronald B. Cappellani, Bernhard Schaller

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology Research International · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrigeminal Neuralgia and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineReflexTrigeminal nerveComplicationMechanism (biology)ArteryAnesthesiaCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background. Coronary artery spasm (CAS) is a rarely reported complication in neurosurgical patients and its main causative mechanism was attributed to vagal mediated responses. However, these may be the unusual manifestations of trigeminal cardiac reflex (TCR) which is a well established brain stem reflex observed in various neurosurgical patients. Methods and Results. In this review, we have searched for the case reports/papers related to intraoperative coronary spasm in neurosurgical patients and described the role of TCR in this regard. TCR is a possible mechanism in producing CAS in most of the cases in which stimulation occurred at or near the vicinity of trigeminal nerve. It is likely that TCR mediated coronary spasm may be a physiological mechanism and not related to actual myocardial insult apparent by cardiac enzymes or echocardiography studies in most of the cases. Some common risk factors may also exist related to occurrence of CAS as well as TCR. Conclusions. In conclusion, neurosurgical procedures occurring at the vicinity of trigeminal nerve may produce CAS even in previously healthy patients and may produce catastrophic consequences. There is a need for future reports and experimental studies on the interaction of TCR and pathophysiological mechanisms related to CAS.

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 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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.906
Threshold uncertainty score0.818

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.374 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations29
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurology Research InternationalSame topicTrigeminal Neuralgia and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207