MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3158534189 · doi:10.7759/cureus.14671

Bilateral Facial Palsy: A Clinical Approach

2021· article· en· W3158534189 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFacial Nerve Paralysis Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePalsyEtiologyDifferential diagnosisPediatricsMedical diagnosisSarcoidosisPhysical examinationDiseaseMedical historyIntensive care medicineDermatologySurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bilateral facial palsy (BFP) is exceedingly rare, representing only 0.3%-2.0% of facial palsy cases. Unlike unilateral facial palsy, it is often caused by a serious underlying systemic disease and therefore warrants urgent medical intervention. The differential diagnosis is broad, and detailed history, physical examination, and investigations are essential for identifying the etiology. Common acquired causes in existing case series include Lyme disease, Guillain-Barré syndrome, sarcoidosis, trauma, and Bell's palsy. Palsy that develops rapidly is often caused by trauma, infections, or autoimmune disorders, whereas slow progressive palsy suggests neoplastic diseases. While management varies by etiology, the physician can consider early empiric corticosteroids given their efficacy in numerous differential diagnoses. Antivirals can be considered in those with a strong history of viral prodrome. In this paper, we present the case of a puerperal patient with BFP and discuss its differential diagnosis, diagnostic approach, and management.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.412
Threshold uncertainty score0.856

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.308 · 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