MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2610631521 · doi:10.4103/jnacc-jnacc-64.16

Macroglossia in neurosurgery

2017· article· en· W2610631521 on OpenAlexaff
Melissa Brockerville, Lashmi Venkatraghavan, Pirjo Manninen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroanaesthesiology and Critical Care · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntraoperative Neuromonitoring and Anesthetic Effects
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMacroglossiaMedicineSurgeryAirway obstructionTongueIntubationEtiologyComplicationAirwayInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Macroglossia, an abnormal swelling of the tongue, is a rare post-operative complication often associated with serious airway obstruction and prolonged intubations. Currently, there is a paucity of information on the true incidence, aetiology, and complications associated with macroglossia. A thorough review of the literature was carried out so as to summarise the characteristics of reported cases of macroglossia and to present potential treatments and preventive strategies. A literature search was conducted in PubMed to identify human case reports of macroglossia after neurosurgical procedures including spine, published in English from 1974 to December 2015. A total of 26 reports with 36 cases of macroglossia were identified. Macroglossia was most commonly reported after sub-occipital and/or posterior fossa craniotomies and spine surgeries in prone or park-bench positions. It is more common after procedures lasting >8 h. The aetiology of macroglossia is multi-factorial and possible mechanisms included local mechanical tongue compression interfering with venous and/or lymphatic drainage, regional venous thrombosis and/or local trauma. Complications included airway obstruction, re-intubation, difficult re-intubation, prolonged intubation and Intensive Care Unit stay and tongue necrosis. Prevention, awareness of the possibility, and early recognition are the best forms of treatment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.293

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations13
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neuroanaesthesiology and Critical CareSame topicIntraoperative Neuromonitoring and Anesthetic EffectsFrench-language works237,207