MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159127408 · doi:10.1017/s0022215109991216

Cholesteatoma in three dimensions: a teaching tool and an aid to improved pre-operative consent

2009· article· en· W2159127408 on OpenAlexaff
David P. Morris, Rene G. Van Wijhe

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Laryngology & Otology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAnatomy and Medical Technology
Canadian institutionsCapital District Health AuthorityDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCholesteatomaTemporal boneCadaveric spasmZoomProcess (computing)Transparency (behavior)Computer scienceMedicineSurgeryDissection (medical)SoftwareMedical physicsRadiologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Otological surgeons face two recurring challenges. Firstly, we must foster an appreciation of the complex, three-dimensional anatomy of the temporal bone in order to enable our trainees to operate safely and independently. Secondly, we must explain to our patients the necessity for surgery which carries the potential for serious complication. METHODS: Amira software was applied to pre-operative computed tomography images of temporal bones with cholesteatoma, to create three-dimensional computer images. Normal structures and cholesteatoma were displayed in a user-friendly, interactive format, allowing both trainee and patient to visualise disease and important structures within the temporal bone. RESULTS: Three cases, and their three-dimensional computer models are presented. Zoom, rotation and transparency functions complemented the three-dimensional effect. CONCLUSION: These three-dimensional models provided a useful adjunct to cadaveric temporal bone dissection and surgical experience for our residents' teaching programme. Also, patients with cholesteatoma reported a better understanding of their pre-operative condition when the models were used during the consenting process.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Laryngology & OtologySame topicAnatomy and Medical TechnologyFrench-language works237,207