MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2917030323 · doi:10.3171/2018.10.jns181983

A history of the Jannetta procedure

2019· article· en· W2917030323 on OpenAlexaff
Anthony M. Kaufmann, Angela V. Price

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of neurosurgery · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrigeminal Neuralgia and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaHealth Sciences CentreManitoba Health
FundersMedical Center, University of PittsburghLouisiana State UniversityCongress of Neurological Surgeons
KeywordsMedicineTrigeminal neuralgiaOperating microscopeMicrovascular decompressionHemifacial spasmSuperior cerebellar arteryNeurosurgeryTrigeminal nerveSurgeryOccipital nerve stimulationNeurovascular bundleFacial nerveMicrosurgeryBasilar artery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Peter Jannetta was a neurosurgery resident when he proposed the neurovascular compression theory. He built upon the astute observations of Dandy, Gardner, and others who, in the era before the operating microscope, had successfully ventured into the posterior fossa. In 1965, Jannetta performed cranial nerve microdissections for dental students and identified the trigeminal portio intermedia. He proposed that preservation of these sensory fibers may avoid complete facial numbness, and together with Robert Rand developed a subtemporal transtentorial approach for selective rhizotomy for trigeminal neuralgia (TN). Such rash surgery, using an operating microscope, was then forbidden at their University of California, Los Angeles center, so they collaborated with John Alksne to perform the first surgery at Harbor General Hospital. Upon visualizing the trigeminal nerve root, Jannetta was surprised to see a pulsating superior cerebellar artery compressing the nerve and said "That's the cause of the tic." He also hypothesized that alleviating the observed vascular cross-compression may be curative.A few months later, while assessing a patient with hemifacial spasm, Jannetta had the epiphany that this was the same disease process as TN, but instead affecting the facial nerve. The patient consented to what would become Jannetta's first microvascular decompression procedure. The senior faculty members who had forbidden such surgery were away, so the supervising neurosurgeon, Paul Crandall, granted the approval to perform the surgery and assisted. Via a retromastoid approach with the patient in the sitting position and using the operating microscope, Jannetta identified and alleviated the culprit neurovascular compression, with a cure resulting.Jannetta presented his neurovascular compression theory and operative findings to the neurosurgical patriarchy of the time. Elders of the field were generally not inclined to accept the bold speculations of an untested neurosurgeon, and were often determined to discredit the new "cure" of the old diseases. Over decades of refining his surgical technique, documenting the outcomes, and enduring the skepticism he often faced, Jannetta's theory and his microvascular decompression procedure withstood critical analysis and have become recognized as one the great discoveries and advances in neurosurgery and medicine.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.009

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations61
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of neurosurgerySame topicTrigeminal Neuralgia and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207