MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086206010 · doi:10.1002/hed.21483

Nasal morbidity following endoscopic skull base surgery: A prospective cohort study

2010· article· en· W2086206010 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHead & Neck · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Surgical Oncology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgerySkullProspective cohort studyOdds ratioRisk factorAnesthesiaEndoscopic endonasal surgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Nasal morbidity following skull base surgery necessitates follow-up for postoperative care. We describe nasal morbidity following endoscopic skull base surgery. METHODS: Patient and operative data and postoperative subjective and objective measures of morbidity were prospectively collected for 1 year. Time to absence of crusting and remucosalization were determined. Risk factor analyses for crusting and nasal discharge were performed. RESULTS: Nasal crusting (98%) and discharge (46%) were the most common postoperative symptoms. Median time to absence of crusting was 101.0 days, with longer times for complex cases (p = .033) but not for patients with septal flaps or fat grafts. Median time to remucosalization after nasoseptal flap was 89.0 days. There were no risk factors for crusting, although surgical complexity was a risk factor for postoperative discharge (odds ratio [OR] = 5.17). CONCLUSIONS: Nasal morbidity following endoscopic skull base surgery is common and may be affected by surgical complexity and use of the nasoseptal flap.

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.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.941

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.302 · 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