MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085678403 · doi:10.1055/s-2006-949514

Transmastoid Partial Labyrinthectomy for Brainstem Vascular Lesions: Clinical Outcomes and Assessment of Postoperative Cochleovestibular Function

2006· article· en· W2085678403 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michael Taplin, Richard Anthony, Michael Tymianski, M. Christopher Wallace, John Rutka

Bibliographic record

VenueSkull base · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVestibular and auditory disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBasilar arteryVestibular systemBrainstemAnterior inferior cerebellar arteryInner earSurgeryAneurysmAudiologyRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To discuss the transmastoid partial labyrinthectomy approach for brainstem vascular lesions, with respect to hearing and balance preservation. DESIGN: Retrospective case series. SETTING: Tertiary referral center (University Health Network, Toronto). PARTICIPANTS: Nine consecutive surgical patients between 1999 and 2004. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical, audiometric, and electrophysiological vestibular data. RESULTS: Nine transmastoid partial labyrinthectomy procedures (all females) were performed. In seven patients the underlying pathology was an intra-axial brainstem cavernous malformation. Two patients were treated for a basilar artery aneurysm. All patients had progressive neurological signs. Serviceable hearing (pure tone average (PTA): < 50 dB; speech discrimination score (SDS): > 50%) was preserved in seven patients. Partial vestibular function (clinical and electrophysiological) was maintained in most patients. CONCLUSIONS: The partial labyrinthectomy approach to the skull base provides excellent exposure while preserving cochleovestibular function in most patients.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.348
Threshold uncertainty score0.596

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations7
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSkull baseSame topicVestibular and auditory disordersFrench-language works237,207