Pain in the Neck: Are We Potentially at Risk?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical symptoms of the patient with Eagle syndrome (ES) are usually very subtle and often confusing even for the most seasoned clinicians. This confusion may lead to a vast number of misdiagnoses. When an elongated styloid process becomes symptomatic, usually the symptoms are varied for each individual, due to the complex nature of the head and neck region. It is essential that a diagnosis of ES be included when evaluating many head and neck conditions. Some cases might require further extensive examination, since ES presents with various heterogeneous symptoms, making it extremely challenging to diagnose. Recently, a case was reported of a sudden death due to ES, a mechanical irritation of the carotid sinus initiated by an elongated styloid process that led to an acute cardiovascular failure. These types of incidences are rare, but very concerning. An elongated styloid process, found frequently in panoramic radiographs, may be a significant and coincidental finding that could possibly be related to many systemic conditions. Therefore, due to calcification of the styloid process, medical attention including a workup would be warranted. A digital panoramic radiograph, readily available in many dental offices, is sufficient to confirm a diagnosis of ES. In rare cases, surgical intervention may become necessary. A cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), which reconstructs a three-dimensional image, can accurately measure the length of the elongated styloid process and assess the severity of the condition. Clinicians, who examine and provide care for the patient with pain in the head and neck region, must become aware of this entity when suspected symptoms are present. J Med Cases. 2017;8(8):237-240 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jmc2848w
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 | 0.001 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".