Surgical anatomy of the parapharyngeal space: Multiperspective, quantification‐based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several surgical approaches to the parapharyngeal space (PPS) have been proposed. An objective description of advantages and limitations of the surgical routes is lacking. METHODS: Ten cadaver heads were dissected using the transnasal (medial, lateral), sublabial, transoral (transpharyngeal, transvestibular, transmandibular), transcervical (transcervical, transparotid, transmandibular, transmastoid), and type C and D infratemporal approaches. Neurovascular and musculoskeletal structures encountered were analyzed. A navigation-based quantification of working volume and exposure of PPS compartments was accomplished. RESULTS: Transnasal approaches exposed the upper PPS, though with limited working volume. Transoral approaches exposed the middle PPS, minimizing neurovascular structures crossed. Only transcervical and skull base approaches exposed the entire PPS, crossing several neurovascular structures. CONCLUSION: A tentative systematization of the surgical approach(es) to PPS in relation to different targets is provided: unicompartmental resection can be performed with a single, conservative access, whereas multicompartmental dissections frequently require a wider or multiportal approach.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".