Expanded Endonasal Approaches to the Anterior Skull Base
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Recent technological advances and growing cooperation between otorhinolaryngologists and neurosurgeons, coupled with an increasing knowledge of the anatomy of the ventral skull base, have led to the development of a series of surgical approaches to this region. Utilizing the nasal corridor, these expanded endonasal approaches (EEAs) benefit from the increased luminosity and definition provided by the endoscope to navigate through this corridor and reach a multitude o pathologies, both neoplastic and degenerative in nature. One of their common uses is to address tumors that arise from or invade the anterior cranial fossa; these lesions may include olfactory groove meningiomas, esthesioneuroblastomas and sinonasal malignancies. In order to safely resect these tumors through EEAs the surgical team must adhere to a series of steps, while planning the procedure as well as carrying it out. In this review article, the authors present these steps and describe the main patient selection criteria and complication avoidance strategies related to expanded endonasal approaches to the anterior skull base.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".