Anatomic Sphenoid Cell Variants: Introduction of the Retrosphenoid Cell and Relevance in the Presentation and Management of Sinus Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Despite the well-appreciated variability in sphenoid sinus anatomy, there are no documented cases of retrosphenoid cells in the literature to date. Objective This study defines and determines the prevalence of retrosphenoid cells as identified on computed tomography (CT) imaging and intraoperative endoscopy and reviews the prevalence of other related anatomical variants of the sphenoid sinus. Methods Retrospective study of 300 random noncontrast sinus CT scans of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis presenting to a tertiary rhinology center. All identifiable anatomic variations and any presence of retrosphenoid cells and their pneumatization patterns were recorded. The prevalence of various anatomic variations of the sphenoid sinus was also calculated. Results A total of 300 sinus CT scans were included in the study. Protrusion of both the internal carotid artery (42.6%) and optic nerve (19.7%) into the sinus was more prevalent than the dehiscence of either one. A retrosphenoid cell was identified in 2% of CT scans. Other anatomic variants were less prevalent. Conclusion Meticulous review of preoperative imaging is key in identifying rare and complex sphenoid cell variations in planning surgical approaches and potential treatment strategies for the unusually pneumatized sphenoid air cells. Various manifestations of sinus disease can be localized to this area, and suspicion of a retrosphenoid cell should be raised in patients presenting with recalcitrant headache.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".