Nasofrontal Outflow Tract Visibility in Computed Tomography Imaging of Frontal Sinus Fractures
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The choice of frontal sinus fracture treatment is based on multiple factors, one of which is injury to the nasofrontal outflow tract (NFOT). Computed tomography (CT) imaging of the NFOT can play an important role in the decision process. We sought to assess the visibility of the NFOT on CT scans in frontal sinus fractures. Patients with frontal sinus fractures (including the posterior table) receiving a CT scan from April 1st 2001 to December 31st 2009 were included. Scans were retrospectively assessed for available views (axial, coronal, and sagittal), slice thickness, inclusion of the anatomical NFOT region in the scanned area, and visibility of the NFOT. A total of 170 patients were included. In majority (71%) of patients NFOT was visible on one or more views, whereas in 33% (N = 56) of patients had three complete views (complete anatomical NFOT region scanned in three views). In this subgroup, the ability to assess the NFOT increased to 89%. When selecting patients with three complete views of ≤ 2 mm slice thickness (N = 47), the ability to assess the NFOT increased to 96%. In conclusion, when assessing the NFOT using CT imaging, having three complete views (axial, coronal, and sagittal) and a ≤ 2 mm slice thickness greatly increases the NFOT visibility.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it