MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066837555 · doi:10.1097/scs.0b013e31821c6b2d

Does the Incidence of Traumatic Brain Injury in Children Increase After Craniofrontal Surgery?

2011· article· en· W2066837555 on OpenAlexaff
Mirko S. Gilardino, Shareef Jandali, Linton A. Whitáker, Scott P. Bartlett

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Craniofacial Surgery · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCraniofacial Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health CentreMontreal Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIncidence (geometry)Traumatic brain injuryCraniosynostosisSkullSkull fractureSurgeryConfidence intervalPopulationRetrospective cohort studyPediatricsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.520

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations8
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Craniofacial SurgerySame topicCraniofacial Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207