Examining Skull Base Surgeon Practice Patterns for Patients with OSA Undergoing Skull Base Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Surgical resection of skull base tumors is commonplace at various tertiary care centers around the world. As surgery of the skull base will often violate dura, intraoperative and postoperative cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leaks are to be expected. Patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) requiring continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy undergoing skull base surgery represent a challenging group. The presence of CSF leak, repaired or not, may represent a passageway into the intracranial compartment for air and bacteria. However, the level of evidence in the existing literature is based on case reports and series, and no clinical practice guideline exists. Objective To examine practice patterns and expert opinion on the use of postoperative positive pressure ventilation in patients who routinely use CPAP undergoing skull base surgery. Methods A 13-item survey was distributed to skull base surgeons across multiple institutions. Primary outcomes include mean duration until resuming the use of CPAP in CPAP-compliant patients versus patients without OSA. Results and Conclusion Pending.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".