MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2883814616 · doi:10.1055/s-0038-1633689

Chondrosarcoma in the Petrous Apex: Case Report and Review

2018· article· en· W2883814616 on OpenAlexaff
Fatmahalzahra Banaz, Ioana Moldovan, Shaun Kilty, Gerard H. Jansen, Fahad Alkherayf

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurological Surgery Part B Skull Base · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNonmelanoma Skin Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChondrosarcomaPetrous boneMedicineApex (geometry)Surgical resectionResectionRadiologySurgeryAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The surgical treatment of petrous apex chondrosarcoma is challenging due to the location of the tumor. Using an endoscopic technique for this tumor resection is becoming a preferred procedure since it provides a minimally invasive approach. Objectives To assess the feasibility and safety of using expanded endoscopic endonasal transclival approach to petrous apex and reconstruction in a case of chondrosarcoma of petrous apex. Case Presentation A 57-year-old female patient admitted for acute onset of left abducens nerve palsy and occasional headache mainly on the left side of the retro-orbital area with some radiation to the left occiput. Admission MRI and CT showed lytic lesion on the left petrous apex and left part of the clivus. Results of metastatic work-up were negative. The surgical procedure considered was expanded endoscopic endonasal transclival approach to the left of the petrous apex and reconstruction with a pedicled nasoseptal flap with image guidance system. The pathology confirmed chondrosarcoma on myxoid background. Results The surgical procedure was uncomplicated. The abducens nerve palsy resolved in few weeks and no new deficits occurred. Patient was discharged on postoperative day 3. Postoperative MR showed complete resection of the tumor. Conclusion Expanded endoscopic endonasal transclival approach to petrous apex and reconstruction appears to be safe and feasible technique, capable of achieving total removal of identified lesions near the petrous apex. Nonetheless, future studies with a greater number of patients are crucial to confirm and consolidate this initial impression.

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: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurological Surgery Part B Skull BaseSame topicNonmelanoma Skin Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207