Stylalgia: An Indian Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The main objective was to study the stylalgia profile in Indians and the outcome of styloidectomy in such cases. DESIGN: This prospective study was carried out by random selection of patients with stylalgia using periodic random numbers. SETTING: This was a hospital-based study. METHODS: Surgical excision of the symptomatic enlarged styloid process was performed by the transtonsillar route using a dilation and curettage (D and C) curette. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The patients were followed postoperatively for their pain relief. RESULTS: Of 40 patients operated on, 31 (77.5%) became symptom free, 5 (12.5%) had considerable improvement in their symptoms, and 4 (10%) had no relief. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of an enlarged styloid process was found to be higher in an Indian rural population with female preponderance owing to their carrying of heavy weight on head. Styloidectomy was very rewarding. The D and C curette was found to be a very effective instrument for styloidectomy.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".