A model for telemedicine adoption : a survey of physicians in the provinces of Quebec and Nova Scotia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Endoscopic approaches to the midline ventral skull base have been extensively developed and refined for resection of cranial base tumors over the past several years. As these techniques have improved, both the degree of resection and complication rates have proven comparable to those for transcranial approaches, while visual outcomes may be better via endoscopic endonasal surgery and hospital stays and recovery times are often shorter. Yet for all of the progress made, the steep learning curve associated with these techniques has hampered more widespread implementation and adoption. The authors address this obstacle by coupling a thorough description of the technical nuances for endoscopic endonasal craniopharyngioma resection with detailed illustrations of the important steps in the operation. Traditionally, transsphendoidal approaches to craniopharyngiomas have been restricted to lesions mostly confined to the sella. However, recently, endoscopic endonasal resections are more frequently employed for extrasellar and purely third ventricle craniopharyngiomas, whose typical retrochiasmatic location makes them ideal candidates for endoscopic transnasal surgery. The endonasal endoscopic approach offers many advantages, including direct access to the long axis of the tumor, early tumor debulking with minimal manipulation of the optic apparatus, more precise visualization of tumor planes, particularly along the undersurface of the chiasm and the roof of the third ventricle, and a minimal-access corridor that obviates the need for brain retraction. Although much emphasis has been placed on technical tenets of exposure and "how to get there," this article focuses on nuances of tumor resection "when you are there." Three operative videos illustrate our discussion of technical tenets.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".