MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158806516 · doi:10.1586/era.13.5

Imaging and resectability issues of sinonasal tumors

2013· review· en· W2158806516 on OpenAlexaff
Navneet Singh, Antoine Eskander, Hugh D. Curtin, Eric Bartlett, Allan Vescan, Dennis H. Kraus, Brian O’Sullivan, Fred Gentili, Patrick Gullane, Eugene Yu

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Anticancer Therapy · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Surgical Oncology
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSkullCavernous sinusRadiologyAnterior cranial fossaRadiation therapyOrbit (dynamics)Neurovascular bundleCraniofacialSinus (botany)Nasal cavitySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sinonasal tumors can invade into the critical structures of the anterior and central skull base. Although the determination of precise tumor histology is difficult with imaging, radiology is important in helping differentiate malignant from benign disease. Imaging helps to map the anatomical extent of intracranial and intraorbital tumor, which has important implications for staging, treatment and prognosis. Imaging also helps to facilitate and plan for craniofacial or endoscopic surgical approaches and radiation planning. This paper will review the locoregional invasion patterns for sinonasal tumors, with emphasis on their imaging features. The authors will discuss the implications for staging, resection potential, choice and details of radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy and prognosis. The imaging assessment of structures and compartments that are critical to the skull base team are highlighted: orbit, cavernous sinus, anterior cranial fossa dura/intracranial tumor, lateral frontal sinus, vascular tumor encasement, perineural tumor spread and tumor effect on the surrounding bony structures.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.889
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.392 · 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.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations18
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Anticancer TherapySame topicHead and Neck Surgical OncologyFrench-language works237,207