MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2809942899 · doi:10.1017/cjn.2018.170

P.068 Hippocampal volume may predict early non-response to surgery in Trigeminal Neuralgia

2018· article· en· W2809942899 on OpenAlexaffvenue
H. T. Danyluk, Cameron Elliott, Matthew Wheatley, Robert Broad, Tejas Sankar

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrigeminal Neuralgia and Treatments
Canadian institutionsAlberta Hospital Edmonton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTrigeminal neuralgiaMagnetic resonance imagingThalamusHippocampusAmygdalaAnesthesiaSurgeryRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Surgical treatment of trigeminal neuralgia (TN) can be highly effective, but durability of pain relief varies and factors influencing surgical failure are poorly understood. We hypothesized that structural brain differences—assessed using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)—might distinguish surgical responders from early non-responders. Methods: We retrospectively identified 35 TN patients treated surgically from 2005-2017 with high-resolution, -pre-operative MRI scans adequate for quantitative structural analysis. Patients were classified as non-responders if, within 12-months after surgery, they: 1) underwent or were offered another surgical procedure; or 2) reported persistent, inadequately-controlled pain. Volumes of pain-relevant subcortical structures (amygdala, thalamus, and hippocampus) were measured on T1-weighted MRI scans using an automated approach (FSL-FIRST). Results: Surgical responders had significantly larger hippocampi bilaterally compared to early non-responders. Thalamus and amygdala volumes did not differ between groups. Conclusions: Pre-operative differences in brain structure, notably in the hippocampus, may predict durability of response to surgery in patients with TN.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0040.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences NeurologiquesSame topicTrigeminal Neuralgia and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207