Blink Reflex for Trigeminal Nerve Block or Blind Local Anesthetic Infiltration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To the Editor: Bernard and Péréon (1) used the blink reflex to identify the infraorbital branch of the trigeminal nerve to provide regional anesthesia for elderly patients undergoing minor surgery of the nose, cheek, or lower eyelid. The infraorbital branch is a strictly sensory nerve, and only results in a motor response through its bulbar connection between trigeminal and facial nerves. Blind infiltration of local anesthetic solution around the cutaneous emergence of infraorbital nerve would lead to the same surgical comfort. Superficial face surgery is usually made after skin infiltration with local anesthetics, and I am not convinced of a major difference with infraorbital block (2). Physiologically, the authors do not bring additional evidence to support their notion that the blink reflex is the neurophysiologic motor response to that stimulation, such as that used by laboratories as a diagnostic tool for bulbar or trigeminal pathologies. Laboratory studies show that blink reflex response is bilateral (3). Using the technique of Bernard and Péréon, I noticed clear homolateral blink reflex. Could other mechanisms explain such a difference? Xavier de Lacroix de Lavalette, MD Department of Anesthesiology Clinique de la Baie Villedieu, France [email protected]
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.023 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
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".