Resection of an oculomotor nerve cavernous angioma
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cavernous angiomas (CAs) of cranial nerves are rare, and their occurrence on the third cranial nerve is particularly rare. Surgical management of such CAs involving the third nerve is controversial. We describe a case of a symptomatic CA of the oculomotor nerve and review the literature in order to ascertain the relevance of surgical intervention. CASE DESCRIPTION: A 71-year-old male patient presented with a 2-month history of progressive oculomotor nerve paralysis. CA of the oculomotor nerve was suspected on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The patient underwent complete resection of the CA through a subtemporal approach, preserving the integrity of the nerve. Histopathological analysis confirmed the diagnosis of CA. Despite optimal resection, the patient did not improve postoperatively. CONCLUSION: CAs of cranial nerves can cause rapid or progressive neurological deterioration. Whereas delayed treatment often leads to irreversible deficits, early nerve-sparing surgical excision of the CAs may potentially restore function.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it