MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2319348050 · doi:10.1055/s-0034-1390020

Aneurysmal Bone Cyst of the Temporal Bone Presenting with Headache and Partial Facial Palsy

2015· article· en· W2319348050 on OpenAlexaff
Snežana Popović, Almunder Algird, Abdullah Alobaid, Kesava Reddy, Stephanie N. Kletke

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurological Surgery Reports · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone Tumor Diagnosis and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPalsyTemporal boneMedicineBone cystAneurysmal bone cystSurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Aneurysmal bone cysts (ABCs) are benign bony lesions that rarely affect the skull base. Very few cases of temporal bone ABCs have been reported. We describe the first case of a temporal bone ABC that was thought to be consistent with a meningioma based on preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings. Clinical Presentation An otherwise healthy 23-year-old woman presented with a pulsatile noise in her left ear and a 4-week history of throbbing headache with nausea. There was no associated emesis, visual or auditory changes, or other neurologic features. Neurologic examination revealed a left lower motor neuron facial paresis. Computed tomography and MRI studies demonstrated a large lesion in the left middle cranial fossa skull base with erosion of the petrous temporal bone. Based on the presence of a "dural tail" on preoperative contrast-enhanced T1-weighted imaging, the lesion was interpreted to likely be consistent with a meningioma. An orbitozygomatic approach was utilized for surgical excision. Histopathologic evaluation was consistent with an ABC. Conclusion Postoperatively the patient had improvement in the lower motor neuron facial paresis. It is important to consider ABC in the differential diagnosis of intracranial lesions accompanied by the dural tail sign on MRI.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.315

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.215 · 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.

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

Citations13
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurological Surgery ReportsSame topicBone Tumor Diagnosis and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207