MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2323346172 · doi:10.1097/sap.0000000000000713

Surgical Correction of Nonsyndromic Sagittal Craniosynostosis

2016· review· en· W2323346172 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew Simpson, Alison Wong, Michael Bezuhly

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Plastic Surgery · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCraniofacial Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCraniosynostosisMedicineCraniosynostosesCraniofacialSkullSagittal sutureSurgerySagittal planePerioperativeMagnetic resonance imagingRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sagittal craniosynostosis remains the most common type of isolated craniosynostosis, accounting for nearly half of all nonsyndromic cases. The clinical diagnosis is typically made on the basis of a scaphocephalic head shape and is confirmed by computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging. The current review examines the major surgical options for correction of isolated sagittal craniosynostosis, including their complications and short- and long-term outcomes. Reconstructive techniques have benefited from advances in perioperative anesthesia monitoring and improved safety of blood transfusion. Although extensive calvarial remodeling is considered safe and may confer greater long-term skull shape correction and decreased neuropsychological sequelae, minimally invasive techniques, such as device-assisted expansion of the cranium continue to increase in popularity. This review underscores the need for additional prospective studies comparing different techniques to determine the optimal reconstructive approach for correction of sagittal craniosynostosis.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations33
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Plastic SurgerySame topicCraniofacial Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207