Early Experience with Endoscopic Endonasal Techniques for Skull Base Pathologies at a Referral Center in Colombia: Multidisciplinary Team Approach Implementation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The development of skull base surgery can be roughly divided into two eras, those of open and endoscopic skull base surgery; in our practice, the open surgery showed the advantage to improve the opportunities in minimal invasive surgery. Our practice, which is done in a state center of reference in oncological pathology were the majority of patients coming from all regions of the country with extensive tumor pathology. We want to show the early experience with endoscopic endonasal techniques based on the well-known recommendations of the large groups of endonasal endoscopic surgery. As has been said endoscopic endonasal surgery is predominantly between the collaboration of neurosurgeons and rhinologic surgeons; differences in training are associated with distinct knowledge and skill sets, as well as oncological philosophy. The normalization of training and the acquisition of surgical skills for endonasal skull base surgery have been widely described for more than 10 to 15 years. Our objective is to be able to implant the model multidisciplinary team of skull base to the reality of Latin America and Colombia and at the same time to report cases managed with endonasal endonasal surgery.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".