MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3165321362 · doi:10.1097/mao.0000000000003185

3D Exoscope Navigation-Guided Approach to Middle Cranial Fossa

2021· article· en· W3165321362 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Vivian F. Kaul, Caleb J. Fan, Enrique Perez, Zachary G. Schwam, Constantinos G. Hadjipanayis, George B. Wanna

Bibliographic record

VenueOtology & Neurotology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMeningioma and schwannoma management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMiddle fossaSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To test the feasibility and efficacy of a 3D exoscope navigation-guided middle cranial fossa (MCF) approach to the internal auditory canal (IAC); to potentially obviate the need to use dissection landmarks and instead, use the navigation probe as a guide to find structures and drill down to the IAC. PATIENTS: Cadaveric dissection of six temporal bones. INTERVENTION: Computed tomography temporal bone was performed with fiducials on each specimen before the dissection to employ the navigation system. Using a 3D exoscope with navigation by Synaptive (Toronto, Ontario, Canada), the MCF approach was performed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Navigation accuracy, ability to identify critical structures, and ability to drill out the IAC successfully. RESULTS: All six specimens had the IAC successfully drilled out using the 3D exoscope. All dissections were performed with navigation and did not require dissecting out the greater superficial petrosal nerve and superior semicircular canal. One specimen used landmark dissection to confirm the IAC after navigation had been used to locate the IAC first. Navigation accuracy mean was 1.86 mm (range, 1.56-2.05 mm). CONCLUSION: A 3D exoscope navigation-guided MCF approach to the IAC is feasible without landmark dissection.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOtology & NeurotologySame topicMeningioma and schwannoma managementFrench-language works237,207