Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The anterior ethmoidal region, including the bulla ethmoidalis, is the most common area addressed during functional endoscopic sinus surgery. Therefore, a detailed understanding of the bulla is essential for safe and effective surgery. HYPOTHESIS: Based on a review of historical articles on sinus anatomy and review of the current understanding of sinonasal embryology, it is suggested that the ethmoidal bulla is a "lamella" structure rather than a "cell," as it is widely accepted to be. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the anatomic conformation and nature of the ethmoidal bulla. METHODS: Detailed gross anatomic sagittal dissection of 14 sinonasal complexes with special attention to the ethmoidal bulla and surrounding structures and pneumatization tracts. RESULTS: The ethmoidal bulla consisted of a distinct bony lamella in all cases. The degree of development and pneumatization was variable, ranging from a rudimentary torus to a relatively well-pneumatized "bulla"-like structure. A pneumatization tract originating from the retrobullar recess was present in all specimens. This pneumatization excavated into the lamella, creating the bulla-like appearance as viewed from the middle meatus. However, the bulla was not a discrete individual ethmoid cell as it did not have a complete or discrete posterior bony wall. Rather, the posterior wall of this pneumatization tract was formed by the basal lamella. CONCLUSION: The ethmoidal bulla lacks a distinct posterior wall and therefore is not a separate cell but rather a bony lamella with an air space behind it. From an anatomic perspective, bulla is perhaps not the best term for this structure.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".