MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2986205553 · doi:10.1159/000504263

Defining the Anatomy of the Vagus Nerve and Its Clinical Relevance for the Neurosurgical Treatment of Glossopharyngeal Neuralgia

2019· article· en· W2986205553 on OpenAlexaff
Marie T. Krüger, Charles Dong, Christopher R. Honey

Bibliographic record

VenueStereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrigeminal Neuralgia and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVagus nerveMedicineGlossopharyngeal nerveAnatomyAccessory nerveAnesthesiaCranial nervesSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The neurosurgical treatment of glossopharyngeal neuralgia includes microvascular decompression or rhizotomy of the nerve. When considering open section of the glossopharyngeal nerve, numerous authors have recommended additional sectioning of the 'upper rootlets' of the vagus nerve because these fibers can occasionally carry the pain fibers causing the patient's symptoms. Sacrifice of vagus nerve rootlets, however, carries the potential risk of dysphagia and dysphonia. In this study, the anatomy and physiology of the vagus nerve rootlets are characterized to provide guidance for surgical decision-making. Twelve patients who underwent posterior fossa craniotomy with intraoperative electrophysiological monitoring of the vagus nerve rootlets were included in this study. In the 7 patients with glossopharyngeal neuralgia, the clinical outcomes and complications were further analyzed. In half of the patients, electrophysiological data demonstrated pure sensory function in the rostral rootlet(s) of the vagus nerve and motor responses in its caudal rootlets. This orientation of the vagus nerve, with some pure sensory function in its most rostral rootlet(s), was defined as Type A. In the other half of patients, all vagus nerve rootlets (including the most rostral) had motor responses. This was defined as Type B. The surgical strategy was guided by whether the patient had a Type A or Type B vagus nerve. For those with Type B, no vagus nerve rootlets were sacrificed. None of the patients with glossopharyngeal neuralgia developed any permanent neurological deficits. We recommend intraoperative electrophysiological testing of the vagus nerve rootlets. If the testing reveals motor innervation in the rostral vagal rootlet (Type B), that rootlet may be decompressed but should not be sectioned to avoid a motor complication. Patients with pure sensory innervation of the rostral rootlet(s) (Type A) can have decompression or section of those rootlets without complication.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations13
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStereotactic and Functional NeurosurgerySame topicTrigeminal Neuralgia and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207