Factors Predicting the Need for Surgery of the Opposite Side After Unilateral Evacuation of Bilateral Chronic Subdural Hematomas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with bilateral chronic subdural hematoma (bCSDH) undergo unilateral evacuation for the large or symptomatic side because the contralateral hematoma is either small or asymptomatic. However, the contralateral hematoma may subsequently grow and require evacuation. OBJECTIVE: To characterize factors that predict contralateral hematoma growth and need for evacuation. METHODS: A retrospective study on 128 surgically treated bCSDHs. RESULTS: Fifty-one and 77 were bilaterally and unilaterally evacuated, respectively. Glasgow Coma Scale was lower and midline shift was higher in those evacuated unilaterally compared to those evacuated bilaterally. Hematoma size was a significant determinant of decision for unilateral vs bilateral evacuation. The contralateral side needed evacuation at a later stage in 7 cases (9.1%). There was no significant difference in terms of reoperation rate between those evacuated unilaterally and bilaterally. Greater contralateral hematoma thickness on the first postoperative day computed tomography (CT) and more postoperative midline shift reversal had higher rates of operation in the opposite side. There was no difference between the daily pace of hematoma decrease in the operated and nonoperated sides (0.7% decrease per day vs 0.9% for the operated and nonoperated sides, respectively). CONCLUSION: Results of this study show that most bCSDHs evacuated unilaterally do not experience growth in the nonoperated side and unilateral evacuation results in hematoma resolution for both sides in most cases. Hematoma thickness on the opposite side on the first postoperative day CT and amount of midline shift reversal after surgery are the most important factors predicting the need for surgery on the opposite side.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".