MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Transverse Nasal Crease and Transverse Nasal Milia

2012· review· en· W2094740542 on OpenAlex
Brittany Waller, Richard M. Haber

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

VenueArchives of Dermatology · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Ear and Nasal Anomalies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTransverse planeNoseMiliaNasal cartilagesAnatomyNasal septumDermatologyRhinoplasty

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Transverse nasal crease is an uncommonly reported entity. It likely represents an embryologic fault line. Transverse nasal milia have also been reported in the same location, both as an isolated finding and in a transverse nasal crease. This observation suggests they are variants of the same entity. OBSERVATIONS: Two cases, one of transverse nasal crease with milia and one of transverse nasal milia in the absence of a crease, are reported. A review of the literature on these rarely reported conditions was performed. CONCLUSIONS: It is important for clinicians to be aware of transverse nasal creases, since they may be encountered in a dermatologic practice. Transverse nasal creases, milia in transverse nasal creases, transverse nasal milia, and transverse nasal comedones in the absence of a transverse nasal crease are likely variants of the same entity. They most probably occur because the triangular cartilage and the alar cartilage attach in a linear fashion at the junction of the middle and lower third of the nose. This produces a potential embryonic fault line in which retention cysts presenting as milia and comedones can occur. These clinical presentations merit attention because they are likely much more common than reported.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.269 · 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