The Mini-Modified Orbitozygomatic and Supraorbital Approaches Anatomical Comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Seven sides of cadaver heads were used to compare the surgical exposures provided by the mini-modified orbitozygomatic (MOz) and supraorbital (SO) approaches. The Optotrak 3020 computerized tracking system (Northern Digital, Waterloo, ON, Canada) was utilized to evaluate the area of anatomical exposure defined by six points: (1) ipsilateral sphenoid ridge; (2) most distal point of the ipsilateral middle cerebral artery (MCA); (3) most distal point of the ipsilateral posterior cerebral artery (PCA); (4) most distal point of the contralateral PCA; (5) most distal point of the contralateral MCA; and (6) contralateral sphenoid ridge. Additionally, angles of approach for the ipsilateral MCA bifurcation, ipsilateral ICA bifurcation, basilar artery tip, contralateral MCA and ICA bifurcation and anterior communicating artery (AcomA) were evaluated, first for SO and then for MOz. An image guidance system was used to evaluate the limits of surgical exposure. No differences in the area of surgical exposure were noted ( p > 0.05). Vertical angles were significantly wider for the ipsilateral and contralateral ICA bifurcation, AcomA, contralateral MCA and basilar tip ( p < 0.05) for MOz. No differences in horizontal angles were observed between the approaches for the six targets ( p > 0.05). There were no differences in the limits of exposure. MOz affords no additional surgical working space. However, our results demonstrate systematically that vertical exposure is improved. The MOz should be performed while planning an approach to these regions and a wider exposure in the vertical axis is needed.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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".