MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791904678 · doi:10.1097/scs.0000000000004399

The State of Technology in Craniosynostosis

2018· review· en· W2791904678 on OpenAlexaff
Tyler Safran, Alex Viezel-Mathieu, Benjamin Béland, Alain J. Azzi, Rafael Galli, Mirko S. Gilardino

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Craniofacial Surgery · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCraniofacial Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCraniosynostosisMedicineCranial vaultCraniofacialSkullCraniosynostosesCraniofacial surgeryInclusion (mineral)Surgical planningSurgeryDentistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Craniosynostosis, the premature fusion of ≥1 cranial sutures, is the leading cause of pediatric skull deformities, affecting 1 of every 2000 to 2500 live births worldwide. Technologies used for the management of craniofacial conditions, specifically in craniosynostosis, have been advancing dramatically. This article highlights the most recent technological advances in craniosynostosis surgery through a systematic review of the literature. METHODS: A systematic electronic search was performed using the PubMed database. Search terms used were "craniosynostosis" AND "technology" OR "innovation" OR "novel.' Two independent reviewers subsequently reviewed the resultant articles based on strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. Selected manuscripts deemed novel by the senior authors were grouped by procedure categories. RESULTS: Following review of the PubMed database, 28 of 536 articles were retained. Of the 28 articles, 20 articles consisting of 21 technologies were deemed as being novel by the senior authors. The technologies were categorized as diagnostic imaging (n = 6), surgical planning (n = 4), cranial vault evaluation (n = 4), machine learning (n = 3), ultrasound pinning (n = 3), and near-infrared spectroscopy (n = 1). CONCLUSION: Multiple technological advances have impacted the treatment of craniosynostosis. These innovations include improvement in diagnosis and objective measurement of craniosynostosis, preoperative planning, intraoperative procedures, communication between both surgeons and patients, and surgical education.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0160.017
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.281 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Craniofacial SurgerySame topicCraniofacial Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207