Bibliographic record
Abstract
Selecting the most appropriate surgical approach to the craniovertebral junction (CVJ) is based on minimizing the associated morbidity and maximizing the operative exposure in relation to the size, pathology, and specific location of the lesion. With the evolving repertoire of modern neurosurgical techniques, direct access to the CVJ can be attained along all 360 degrees of the occipital-spinal axis. Anterior-superior approaches to the CVJ, which include the transoral approach, are best suited for extradural, midline lesions of the clivus and upper cervical vertebrae. Anterior lesions that have a paramedian location or extend inferiorly from the CVJ may be exposed by either a retropharyngeal or mandibular swing approach. The lateral approaches to the CVJ include the lateral transcervical, transpetrosal, and infratemporal fossa approaches. These approaches are particularly well suited for ventrally situated intradural lesions. Finally, posterior approaches are preferred for midline posterior or posterolaterally situated intradural lesions. The far lateral approach provides direct access to the lower ventral brainstem and the anterior foramen magnum while minimizing the need for retraction. The following article is a synopsis of the most common surgical approaches. KEYWORDS Craniovertebral junction - surgery - transoral - far lateral - suboccipital - complications
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".