MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2314222792 · doi:10.1055/s-0035-1546717

The Radiological Anatomy of the Olfactory Fossa

2015· article· en· W2314222792 on OpenAlexaff
Lukas Kus, Eric Monteiro, John R. de Almeida, Allan Vescan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurological Surgery Part B Skull Base · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Surgical Oncology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnterior cranial fossaSkullAnatomySinus (botany)Paranasal sinusesMedicineFossaAnatomic VariationRadiologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Computed tomography (CT) is a powerful tool for delineating the anatomy of the anterior skull base and paranasal sinuses. The endoscopic sinus surgeon must be well acquainted with anatomical variation to avoid dangerous iatrogenic complications. The Keros classification is a useful system for identifying potentially dangerous surgical anatomy, but it is incomplete in its description of the olfactory fossa. The goal of this study is to further characterize the relevant anatomical features of this area, along with other parameters important for endoscopic sinus surgery. Methods: CT scans of the paranasal sinuses from a database of 30 patients with various sinonasal diagnoses were randomly selected and analyzed for multiple radioanatomic features. Patients with underlying conditions that affect the integrity of the skull base were excluded. The following features were assessed using image analysis software: olfactory fossa depth, the length of the lateral lamella and the angle at which it meets the cribriform plate, fovea ethmoidal is length and shape, ethmoid roof height and slope, and the position and course of the anterior ethmoid artery. The anterior skull base was defined as the point of exit of the anterior ethmoid artery, whereas the posterior skull base was defined as the point of the sphenoethmoidal junction. Statistical analysis was performed assessing for differences in the above parameters based on skull base position and laterality, and patient demographics. Results: The 30 scans randomly selected included 17 males and 13 females with various sinonasal inflammatory conditions. The mean olfactory fossa depth of the anterior and posterior skull base was 3.4 ± 1.1 mm and 2.4 ± 0.9 mm, respectively ( p < 0.05). The mean lateral lamella length was 3.6 ± 0.9 mm, which did not significantly vary based on patient characteristics, skull base position or laterality. The angle of the lateral lamella varied significantly by skull base position, measuring 63.1 ±17.8 degrees anteriorly, and 39.1 ±17.9 degrees posteriorly ( p < 0.05). In scans where the depth of the olfactory fossa was classified as a Keros type I, 25.3% had lateral lamella were longer than 4 mm. Furthermore, 43.7% had lateral lamellae with angles less than 45 degrees. Skull base height, measured at various points, was significantly lower in females compared with males. The angle of the skull base was 19.1 ± 9.5 degrees anteriorly and only 2.4 ± 9.1 degrees posteriorly ( p < 0.05). Most importantly, moving anteriorly, the posterior skull base sloped downward in 46.7% of patients. Conclusion: Thorough preoperative assessment of CT scans is crucial to understanding the inherent variability of skull base anatomy. The skull base surgeon must appreciate that even “safe” anatomy can still contain features such as long and acutely angled lateral lamella, which may predispose patients to iatrogenic injury. Finally, despite the commonly taught surgical pearl that the skull base slopes upward in a posterior to anterior direction, this study demonstrates that a significant portion of patients can have the opposite occurring, especially in the posterior ethmoid cavity.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.111
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurological Surgery Part B Skull BaseSame topicHead and Neck Surgical OncologyFrench-language works237,207