MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2887380301 · doi:10.1503/cjs.010317

A method to repair the recurrent laryngeal nerve during thyroidectomy

2018· article· en· W2887380301 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Angela Gurrado, Alessandro Pasculli, Angela Pezzolla, Giovanna Di Meo, Maria Luisa Fiorella, Rocco Cortese, Nicola Avenia, Mario Testini

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Surgery · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThyroid and Parathyroid Surgery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRecurrent laryngeal nerveThyroidectomySuperior laryngeal nerveSurgeryRecurrent nerveLarynxThyroidParalysisInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Summary</h3> Vocal cord palsy (VCP) is one of the most frequent complications following thyroidectomy. We evaluated the outcomes of intraoperative reconstruction of the recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN). Of 917 patients who underwent thyroid surgery in a single high-volume general surgery ward between 2000 and 2015, 12 (1.3%) were diagnosed with RLN injury and were retrospectively categorized into 2 groups: group A (<i>n</i> = 5), with intraoperative evidence of iatrogenic transection or cancer invasion of the RLN, and group B (<i>n</i> = 7), with postoperative confirmation of VCP. In group A, immediate microsurgical primary repair of the RLN was performed. Postoperative assessment included subjective ratings (aspiration and voice quality improvement) and objective ratings (perceptual voice quality according to the grade, roughness, breathiness, asthenia and strain [GRBAS] scale, and direct laryngoscopy). In group A, roughness, breathiness and strain were significantly lower at 9 months than at 3 months (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.05). Although larger, multicentre studies are needed, the results suggest potentially excellent postoperative phonatory function after immediate RLN reconstruction.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations25
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of SurgerySame topicThyroid and Parathyroid SurgeryFrench-language works237,207