Does the Incidence of Traumatic Brain Injury in Children Increase After Craniofrontal Surgery?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Craniofrontal reshaping (CR) for the treatment of craniosynostosis results in a temporary cranial defect due to the advancement and/or expansion of the supraorbital and frontal bones. The goal of the present study was to determine whether the incidence traumatic brain injury (TBI) was increased in patients after CR as a result of this breach in skull integrity. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review of all patients with a diagnosis of craniosynostosis who underwent CR between 1997 and 2007 at our institution. The incidence of TBI (defined as a computed tomography-documented brain or skull injury or loss of consciousness) was determined during a 2-year postoperative follow-up period. Patients older than 1 year at the time of surgery, or those with less than 2 years of follow-up after surgery, were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 396 patients met the inclusion criteria. The incidence of TBI was zero (95% confidence interval, 0-760/100,000). CONCLUSIONS: The estimated incidence of TBI after CR surgery is between 0 and 760 per 100,000 patients in our clinic population. These data indicate that although CR may be associated with a slightly increased risk of TBI while the skull is healing, the absolute incidence of such injury remains extremely rare.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".