Coronary Spasm in Neurosurgical Patients and Role of Trigeminocardiac Reflex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".