MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2406577324 · doi:10.1017/s0317167100051969

Craniotomy Revisited: Techniques for Improved Access and Reconstruction

2000· article· en· W2406577324 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Michael D. Cusimano, Agustinus Suhardja

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Surgical Oncology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersHospital for Sick Children
KeywordsCraniotomyMedicineDissection (medical)SurgerySoft tissue

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To describe simple modifications of the technique of opening and closure of the craniotomy to improve basal exposure and reconstruction. METHODS: The modifications involve: a) additional soft-tissue dissection which is carried downward to the base of the ear and to the orbital rim, exposing the orbital rim and malar eminence without removing the bone; b) cutting the bone flap so that 'bridges' of bone remain that help to stabilize the flap when it is returned to the cranium at the end of the operation; c) the wedging of bone chips between the bone flap and native cranium at the time the bone is being reaffixed so as to provide firm stability by diminishing movement of the bone flap; d) the use of bone dust and bone chips mixed with the patient's blood to seal and bridge the gap between the bone flap and the native bone; e) reattachment of the temporalis muscle with the bone flap sutures. An 'inlay' technique of duraplasty is also described. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: These simple modifications of craniotomy provide better basal exposure and reconstruction with little additional operating time at no additional cost.

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)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.282 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations12
Published2000
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences NeurologiquesSame topicHead and Neck Surgical OncologyFrench-language works237,207