MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2913205150 · doi:10.1002/hed.25669

Importance of incorporating intraoperative neuromonitoring of the external branch of the superior laryngeal nerve in thyroidectomy: A review and meta‐analysis study

2019· review· en· W2913205150 on OpenAlexaff
Mai Naytah, Iman Ibrahim, Sabrina da Silva

Bibliographic record

VenueHead & Neck · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThyroid and Parathyroid Surgery
Canadian institutionsJewish General HospitalMcGill UniversityRoyal Victoria Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineThyroidectomySuperior laryngeal nerveThyroidCochrane LibraryRecurrent laryngeal nerveSurgeryAnesthesiaGeneral surgeryInternal medicineRandomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Voice changes are frequently reported after thyroidectomy due to injury to the external branch of the superior laryngeal nerve (EBSLN) and paralysis of the cricothyroid muscle, The objective is to evaluate the advantage of intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) in identifying EBSLN during thyroid surgery. METHODS: Data sources were MEDLINE, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from January 1, 1995, through July 1, 2018. Published studies of adult patients who had thyroid surgery and an attempt to identify EBSLN done by conventional methods and/or IONM were selected. RESULTS: Seven studies met all inclusion criteria. Patients who had IONM during thyroid surgery had a significantly increased number of identified EBSLN at risk, compared to the control group. CONCLUSION: The use of IONM during open thyroid surgery increases EBSLN identification/visualization, and hence it may decrease the incidence of post-thyroidectomy voice disorders.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.018
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.095
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations28
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHead & NeckSame topicThyroid and Parathyroid SurgeryFrench-language works237,207